Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav

DRT5 Dec 2025OA/460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application, the Tribunal examined evidence from the bank. Finding the defendant absent and evidence sufficient to establish the claim, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed payment of the principal amount with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.23,28,320.40 with future interest at 11.20 p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O5TH DAY OF DECEN,IBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M,A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 460 OF 2025

¶3

ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Towers, Gachibowli Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rep' by its Authorized signatory'

¶4

.Appricant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav, S/o. Srisailam Yadav, Age 32 Years, Occ: Pvt. Service H.No.1- 11, Nanajipur, Near Government School, Ranga Reddy - 501218.

¶7

Also at:-

¶8

Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav, S/o. Srisailam Yadav, Age 32 Years. Occ: Pvt. Service C/o. Mphasis Limited, Sundew Properties Limited Buildlng 12C TSIC Software Layout Mindspace, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.

¶9

...... Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Lotus Law Associates Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,28,320.40ps from the defendant with future interest @11.20olo^p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of application ti the date of reatisation along - with costflY4c.,u/' a.\x"

¶13

OA.No.450/2025

¶14

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant and^{was set ex-parteon} 09.07.2025 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined K. Raja^{Yaswanth, Area Relationship} Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through^him as^Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and^{perused the} material^placed on record.

¶18

The^point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

In the result, the^{present Original Appllcation No.460/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.23,28,320.40ps with^{future interest} @11.20olo^{p.a. simpte,from the dateof applicationtill} the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the applicant bank is^also entitled^{to proceedagainst} the person and^{propertie^s} of^{the defendantfor} its dues; ,fu'rrt-

¶24

."",,r.0"" "t / '-,

¶25

OA.No.460/2025

¶26

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

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 05th day of December, 2025).

¶31

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav

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. Canara Bank versus M/S. Matrix Lab Tech

Sri Telaganeedi Sivarampratap versus Union Bank of India

Csb Bank Limited versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Dheeraj Traders

Bank of India versus Sri. Chekuri Nagavenkatarama Raju

Kishore Singh Nayal versus LIC Housing Finance Limited