Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Balija Rajashekar

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank Limited's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 29,98,104/- and future interest against Sri. Balija Rajashekar. The defendant remained ex-parte, and the Tribunal held the defendant liable based on the bank's evidence and recitals.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 29,98,104/- with future interest at 11.1% p.a. simple till realization. Recovery Certificate directed to be issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri Balija Rajashekar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

. PRESENT: SH. RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com,, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESiDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 379 OF 2025

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited., Having its Regional Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.12 Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Ranga Reddy - 500032, Telangana. Rep. by its Power of Attorney ....Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri. Balija Rajashekar, S/o.Chen Basappa Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Govt Employee H.No.8-1-16/4, Green City, Old Tandur Tandur, KV Ranga Reddy District - 501141. ......Defendant

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Rajendra Prasad Defendants : Ex-parte

¶8

::^qLD-E& ::

¶9

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.29,98,104/- as on 71.04.2025 towards Loan A,/c. No. LPHYD00048439446 from the defendant with future interest @24olo p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶10

WS was not filed by sole defendant was forfeited and set ex-parte on 13.08.202s as cailed ubsent awqgj.:qtation.

¶11

OA.No.379/2025

¶12

¶13

The Applicant Bank examined^{Kalvya Rajayaswanth, Area} Relationship Manager as^{AW-1 and marked 07 documents through} him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶14

Ld. counsel for the Applicant^{Bank statedorders may be passed on} merits and^perused the^{materialplacedon record.}

¶15

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶16

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled^for the claim made in the OA against^the Defendant?

¶17

As stated supra, the Defendant^{remained ex-parte. The Evldence} Affidavit coupled with the recitalsⁱⁿ the^{documents viz., Exs.A.1 to} A.7 marked on behalf of^{the ApplicantBank clinchesthe claim of the} Applicant Bank against the Defendant.^{Hence, Ihold that the} Defendant is liable to^pay the^{OA claimto the Applicant Bank wlth} future interest and costs.

¶18

In the result, the^present Original^{ApplicationNo.37912025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶19

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.29,98/104/- as on^{LL.O4.2025towards Loan} A/c. No. LPHYD00048439446 with^{futureinterest} @11.1%^{p.a. simple,from the date of application till} the date of realization;

¶20

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst} the oerson and oroDerties of the defendant^for '/x, xP

¶21

realization or its ouest fl$

¶22

OA.No.379/2025

¶23

¶24

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶25

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of September, 2025)^.

¶28

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Balija Rajashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Balija Rajashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

Bank of India versus M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Muneeswara Traders