Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M. Venkata Krishna Chaitanya

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RDT allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for the recovery of Rs. 22,37,795/- and future interest from the Defendant where the claim was established via an evidence affidavit and marked documents in the Defendant's absence.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant is liable to pay Rs. 22,37,795/- with future interest along with costs; bank entitled to proceed against person and properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus M. Venkata Krishna Chaitanya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Original Application No: 508 OF 2025

¶6

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

¶7

Versus

¶8

M. Venkata Krishna Chaitanya S/o. M.Narasimha Rao

¶9

1208, Pearl Block, My Home Jewel Apts, Madinaguda, Hyderabad - 500049.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

M. Venkata Krishna Chaitanya Flat No.301, M S R l"lansion, Road No.1

¶12

Madhava Puri H ills, Chandanagar KV Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad - 500050. ......Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Anil Vydya

¶14

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

t :: O_LLE& ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.22,37,795/- from the defendant with future interest @2olo^p.m. compounded monthly from 17.05.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶17

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement unclaimed, hence deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 23.01.2025 as calted absent and no representaiofurgg

¶18

¶19

oA.No.508/2025

¶20

The Applica nt Bank examined Kalva Raja Yaswanth, Area

¶21

Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents throug h him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶22

Heard the Ld, Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the

¶23

material placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

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

¶26

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 Applicant 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.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.508/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendant is liabte to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.22,37,795/- with future interest @10.250lo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the applicant bank is also enti|ed to Proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶30

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

oA.No.508/202s

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

C^ommunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcrihed by him, corrected, iignea ano pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23d day of September, 2025).

¶35

[fur*'* lneresxwnR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. M. Venkata Krishna Chaitanya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M. Venkata Krishna Chaitanya

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

Patan Ayub Khan versus Axis Bank

Mrs. Iris Joseph and Others versus M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd. and others

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb

State Bank of India versus M/S. E.S. Square Infra Tech

M/S. Yes Bank Limited., versus Mrs. Varthya Shiprah

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Ponnambalam Chandra Sheker