Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Kodupaka Nagaraj

DRT14 Nov 2025OA/496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application for debt recovery, the Tribunal allowed the claim of ICICI Bank Limited against Kodupaka Nagaraj for a principal sum of Rs. 23,11,790/- with future simple interest, costs, and an order to issue a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 23,11,790/- with future simple interest at 10.35% p.a. from application date till realization. Costs awarded and Recovery Certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Kodupaka Nagaraj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEIYBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE/ B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 496 OF 2025

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Debt Manager.

¶5

.....Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kodupaka Nagaraj, S/o. Kodupaka Srinivas Plot No.112, H. No.11- 154/P- 112 Near Amma Shabari Garden, Road No.5 Bhu Lakhsmi Na9ar, Peerzadig uda Hyderabad - 500039.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Kodupaka Nagaraj, S/o. Kodupaka Srinivas, 5-11-1001/1, Pochamma Kunta Hanmakonda, Warangal, Telangana - 506001.

¶10

..... . Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Anil Vydya

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,77,790/- from the defendant with future interest @2olo p.m. compounded with monthly rests from 17.05.2025 till the date of rea lisation along with costs.

¶16

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 04.09.2025 as Called absent and no representation. //fun.*'f.. Lt/

¶17

OA.No.496/2025

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶23

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 claim} to^{the Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.496/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.23,11,790l- wlth future interest @10.35o/o p.a. slmple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) the appllcant bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst} the^person and^properties of the defendant^for realization of its dues;

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

OA'No'496/2025

¶30

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file cost Memowithin 2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this Order'}

¶31

g. Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a^{copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno., tianscribed^{byhim, corrected,signedand pronouncedbyme in the} open court on this^{the 14thday of November,2025)'}

¶33

ffi,s,' (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Kodupaka Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Kodupaka Nagaraj

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

Sai Ram First Aid Centre versus Unity Small Finance Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Nandamuri Transporters

State Bank of India versus Mr. Birakayala Praveen, S/O Birakayala Swamy

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Kalavala Sunil Sagar

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Eramalla Ramesh