Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Tholla Saritha

DRT21 Aug 2025OA/611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order in an application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of a loan sum. Finding the defendants defaulted and failing to contest the case due to forfeiture of rights, the Tribunal held them jointly and severally liable and allowed the bank's claim with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.51,38,073.30 plus interest, costs; allow sale of hypothecated assets; issue recovery certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Tholla Saritha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB.^{(HONS.), M.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 611 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, ICICI Towers, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶8

....Applicant.

¶9

And

¶10

Tholla Saritha, D/o. Ramulu Age 36 Years, Occ: Business H.No,14-3-1921212, Road No. 25 Jaya Nagar Colony, Near Main Road, Ballepalle, Khammam - 507002, TS.

¶11

Tholla Kotaiah, S/o. Bakkaiah Age 61 Years, Occ: Business H.No.14-3-19212/2, Road No. 25 Jaya Nagar Colony, Near Main Road, Ballepalle, Khammam - 507002, TS.

¶12

Tholla Nagalaxmi, D/o.Venkaiah Age 36 Years, Occ: Business H.No.14-3-192L2/2, Road No. 25 Jaya Nagar Colony, Near Main Road, Ballepalle, Khammam - 507002, TS.

¶13

Tholla Ashok Kumar, S/o.Kotaiah Age 36 Years, Occ: Business H.No.14-3-192t2/2, Road No. 25 Jaya Nagar Colony, Near Main Road, Ballepalle, Khammam - 507002, TS.

¶14

Shivarathri Prashanth, S/o. Narsaih Age 27 Years, Occ: Business H.No.5-3-288, Venkat Rao Nagar Near Reliance Mart, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District - \OOO72,IS. t{xf

¶15

.... Defendant

¶16

oA,6tt/2024

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant

¶18

Counsel for D-1 to 4

¶19

Defendant No. 5

¶20

Mr. G.Adrian Kiran Raj

¶21

Mr.P.Rama Sharana Sharma

¶22

Ex-pa rte

¶23

:: ORDER::

¶24

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery ot a totar sum of Rs.51,38,073.3gps as on 25.10.2024 from the ctefendants joinfly and severally with future interest @24o/o p.a. with monthly rests from 25.L0.2024 till the date of realisation along with costs and sale OA hypothecated assets.

¶25

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that the defendant No.1 is a principal borrower, defendant Nos.2 & 3 as co-Applicant and defendant No.4 is a guarantor, avaired commerciar Vehicle Loan from the applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 29'07'2022' Defendants No.1 & 4 signed and executed an unattested deed of hypothecation in favour of applicant bank. Defendant No.5 signed and executed the deed of guarantee in favour of Appricant bank' Due to defaurt and negrect in repayment, the roan account was declared as NpA as per the guidelines issued by the RBI. Despite several demands and in spite of Loan Recall notice dated 19.10.2023, the defendants faired to crear the outstanding dues. Hence the present OA is filed.

¶26

The Defendant No.s was set ex_parte on 12.06.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶27

Though the Defendants 1 to 4 entered appearance through their counsel Mr. p.Rama Sharana Sharma, they o'oryo'ot""

¶28

oA,6ttl2024

¶29

written statement. Accordingly, defendants' right of filing^written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 25.06.2025.

¶30

The Applicant Bank examlned K.Rajayaswanth,^{lvlanager as AW-} 1 and marked 17 documents through him as^{Ex. A.1} to^{Ex. A.17.}

¶31

The Defendants' right of adducing evldence was forfeited^for non-representation vide docket order dated 05.08.2025.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the^{applicantbank,} whereas Defendants 1to 4 right of advancing arguments^was forfeited on 12.08.2025. Perused the materlal^placed on recoTd.

¶33

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶34

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and OA^hypothecated assets?

¶35

According to the applicant bank, after availlng loan facilities the defendants committed default in repayment despite several^requests and legal notice. The defendants did not choose to contest the^case and the claim ofthe applicant bank is amply^proved vide^{Exs.A.1 to} A.17 marked through AW.1 and the recitals therein.

¶36

As stated supra, defendant No.5 remained ex^parte and defendants 1 to 4 though entered appearance through a counsel, did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence^{Affidavit of AW.1} coupled with the recitals in Exs.A.1 to A.17 marked on behalf of^the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted.^Hence, I^hold that the defendants 1 to 5 are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay the} oA claim to the applicant bank with future interest and costs,l/K\L9

¶37

oA.6LL/2024

¶38

In the result, the present Original Application No.6It/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶39

i) Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.51,3g,073.3gps to the applicant bank along with future interest @11.75% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the Schedules annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realisation of its debt;

¶41

iii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶42

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶43

12' The Appricant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶44

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web^portal.

¶46

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21,1 day of August, 2025.)

¶47

ffito'z (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Tholla Saritha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Tholla Saritha

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

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Trithika Naresh Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Shivram Sarbendu Mallick

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Quality Engineering

State Bank of India versus Sandhya Vani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Y Sai Praveen Kumar