Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Shaik Mabusubhani

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/1042/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues from a defendant who remained ex-parte. The court held the defendant liable for the principal sum, future interest, and costs based on the evidence affidavit and marked documents.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 38,04,823.26 with future interest @ 16.010/o p.a. simple; applicant entitled to proceed against defendant's properties for realization and to recover costs.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri Shaik Mabusubhani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 1042 OF 2025

¶4

ICICI Bank Ltd., Having its Regional Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.12, Nanakramguda Seriling a m^pa lly, Ranga Reddy -^{500032, Telangana.} Rep. by its Power of Attorney. .....Applica nt

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri Sha ik lvla busu bhani Aged about 54 Years, Occ: Employee Resident of H. No.1- 121, Devadoddi Baireddipale Ma nda l, Tirupathi Chittoor District - 517415. ...... Defendant Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajendera Prasad Defendants :Ex-parte

¶7

:: O-LLE-L ::

¶8

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.38,04,A23.26ps i.e., a sum of Rs.11,20,907.26ps towards A/c. No. 403562033224007 and a sum of Rs.26,83,916/towards Loan A/c. No. LPTRU00048696614 from the defendant^with future interest @24o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date^of application till the date of realisation along^withcosts.

¶9

Summon served on sole defendant through^{paper publication} and was set ex-parte on 24.03.2026 as called absent and^no representation, Elvtt'

¶10

oA.No.1o42l2025

¶11

¶12

The Applicant Bank examined Kalva Raja Yaswanth, Area Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶13

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

¶14

The polnt that arises for consideration is:-

¶15

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

¶16

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz,, Exs. A.1 to A.10 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.

¶17

In the result, the present Original Application No.104212025 is allowed as under: -

¶18

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.38,04,823.26ps i.e., a sum of Rs. 1 1,20,907. 26ps towards A/c. No. 403562033224007 and a sum of Rs.26,83,916/- towards Loan A/c.No.LPTRU00048696614 with future interest @16.01olo^p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization; A*O'"

¶19

OA.No.1M2l202s

¶20

¶21

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for

¶22

realization of its d ues;

¶23

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs,

¶24

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of recelpt of this order.

¶25

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

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 22"d day of June, 2O26).

¶27

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Shaik Mabusubhani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Shaik Mabusubhani

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

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.