Allowed

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Chamakura Upender Reddy

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim against the defendant who remained absent. The defendant was held liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs.23,78,318 with future interest; permission granted to proceed against properties for realization; costs awarded to applicant bank.

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Chamakura Upender Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT; SH. RAMESHWART<OT_HE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 429 OF 2O2S

¶3

i4ls. ICICI Bank Limited., Branch OFfice at Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its^power of Attorney.

¶4

""^A,Plicant

¶5

versus

¶6

.c,1?T?L{1^{up_enderReddy, s/o.ch.Mallareddy} r-rat No.707 F Block, Aankruthi Township Mallikarjuna Nagar, Boduppal Road, Near NTR Statue, Boduppat, Hyderabad _ 5OOO92.

¶7

......Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant lY/s. Anil Vydya

Defenda nts

Ex-pa rte

:: oRDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.23.78,319/- from the defendant with future interest there on @2olo p.m. compounded monthly from 23.04.2025 till the date of realisation a long with costs.

¶13

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

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined K. Raja yaswanth, Area Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1to Ex. A.oe. /^V*r# (-/ )L

¶15

OA.No.429/2025

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

The^point that^{arises for considerationls:-}

¶19

Whether^{the ApplicantBankis entitledfor} the claim^{made in the OA against the} Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra,^{the Defendantremained ex-parte The Evidence} Affidavit^{coupled with the recitals in the documents viz'' Exs'A 1 to} A.09 marked^{on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claimof} the Applicant^{Bank againstthe Defendant'Hence' I hold that the} Defendant^{is liable to pay the OA claimto the Applicant Bank with} future interest^{and costs.}

¶21

In the result,^{the present Original Application No'429/2025is} allowed^{as under: -}

¶22

i) The Defendant^{is liableto pay to the Applicant Banka} sum of Rs.23,78,318/-^{with futureinterest@10'75%} p.a. simple, from the^{date of applicationtill the date of} realization;

¶23

ii) the aPPlica^nt bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst} the^person and^properties of^{the defendantfor} realization of its dues;

¶24

iii) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶25

The Applicant^{Bank ls directed to file} -Cost^{Memo within 2 weeks} from thedateof^receipt of thlsonle(fu(f4

¶26

OA.No.4Zg/ZOZ5

¶27

, I

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

¶30

f; #;il;"":':#:trii:h[lljft ,,%.ff :;tlTJ::f ,"riffi f ;,men,he

¶31

,r:!ww.O/'d*' (RAMESHWAR KOTHF) PRESIDING OTTTCCN'

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Chamakura Upender Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Chamakura Upender Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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