Allowed

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Saikrishna Sahu

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/426/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 23,43,206 with future interest and costs from a defendant who remained absent ex-parte, directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 23,43,206 with future interest at 10.25% p.a., costs, and proceed for realization of dues; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Saikrishna Sahu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

' IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR{OT-HE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 426 OF 2O2S

¶3

M/s. ICICI Bank Limited., Branch Office at cachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Power of Attorney

¶4

....Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Saikrishna Sahu, S/o. Gopinadh Sahu 97b, Srinilayam, Tanashahi Nagar Manikonda, Rangareddy - 50OOB9.

¶7

...... Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. An Vydya Defendants

¶9

: Ex_parte

¶10

:: ORDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,43,206/- from the defendant with future interest there on @2o/o p.m. compounded monthly from ?3.04.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶12

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 12.09.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶13

The Applicant Bank examined K. Raja yaswanth, Area Relationship Manager as AW-1^and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1to Ex. e,OS.ft'rr*

¶14

oA.No.42612025

¶15

¶16

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the ApplicantBank and perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶17

The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶18

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled for} the ctaim made^{in the OA against the} .^Defendant?

¶19

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte'The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^{with the recitals in the documents viz , Exs A l to} A.09 marked on^{behalfof the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of} the Applicant^{Bank againstthe Defendant. Hence, I hold that the} Defendant is liable to^{pay the OA clalmto the Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.426/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^{the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.23,43,206/- with future^interest @10.25% p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶23

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶24

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of recetpt of this ofier. owiv\

¶25

¶26

OA.No.426l2025

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

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 28th day of November,2025).

¶29

!, \rr aa'\ _^{\ -"} ;l'

¶30

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Saikrishna Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Saikrishna Sahu

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Pricon

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Gurudatta Earth Movers

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Abhis Wellness Studios

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kasula Karunakar Goud

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Varaha Constructions