Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mahalaxmi Agencies

DRT16 Jul 2026OA/145/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd for recovery of a debt of approx. Rs. 87.41 lakhs with interest against the Defendant Proprietorship firm and its guarantors, holding the claim established on证据 presented by the bank official.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 87,41,820.99 with future interest @11.5% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; authority to proceed against mortgaged and other properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahalaxmi Agencies — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI cOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 145 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

lClCl Bank Ltd, lClCl Towers, Gachibowli Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Represented by its Authorised Signatory

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mahalaxmi Agencies Rep By lts Proprietor V Archana No.15-87/A,

¶9

Main Road Wanaparthy - 509209 Mobile No:90'10873155

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Mahalaxmi Agencies Rep By lts Proprietor Plot.No.37 & 42 Snehapuri Colony Wanaparthy - 509209

¶12

,-\ / ' r,Y1.,r1...u.
\a'[ . ,/

¶13

(OA. No. 14sl2026)

¶14

2. V Archana

¶15

D/o. Venkateshwarlu Age: 40 years; Occ: Business No.1-35, Santha Bazar Wanaprthy - 509209, Mobile No:9010873155

¶16

Racharla Mohan Sio. R Sharanappa Age: 49 Years; Occ: Business No.1-35, Santha bazar Wanaprthy - 509209 Mobile No:9010873155

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the parties :

¶19

For The Applicant For the Defendants Reserved on Pronounced on

¶20

Lotus Law Associates M/s. Disha Law Firm 15.07.2026 16.07.2026 16.07.2026

¶21

(OA. No. 14sl2025)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.87,41 ,820.99.00. (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Fofi One Thousand Eight Hundred And Twenty and Paise Ninety Nine Only) with future rate of interest @11.5% p.a compounded monthly from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no.1 is a Proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant no. 2 along with Defendant no. 3 availed overdraft loan facility of Rs.18.00 Lacs with interest and executed necessary documents such as Memorandum of Entry dated 19.12.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 2 and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 19.12.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created equitable mortgaged morefully mentioned in the Schedule of property to OA and executed dated 19.12 .2020 and deposited title Bank. The Defendants renewed oned loan facilities from time to

¶25

(OA. No. 14sl2026)

¶26

time and executed necessary loan documents in favor of^the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant^bank classified the account as NPA and issue Loan Recall^Notice/ Demand Notice dated 26.06.2025 to the defendants. lnspite^of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶27

Sri. M/s. Disha Law Firm, Rep by Nageshwar Rao Pujari^filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 3. WS of Defendants No. 1 to 3 not filed and hence Defendants No. 1 to 3^called absent and set exparte on 15.07.2026.

¶28

Sri. Kalva Raja Yashwanth, Area Relationship Manager of^the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.'l and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4.21^.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

The rise for consideration is whether the Applicant the claim made in the OA against the o'13.tut2[76 : 7. SeteioZni!'^iJi"q'nii xparte. To substantiate the case of the , official of the^{ApplicantBank was} ibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to W 4

¶31

(oA. No. 14sl2026)

¶32

4.21. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶34

The Defendants no. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.87,41,820.99.00. (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Forty One Thousand Eight Hundred And Twenty and Paise Ninety Nine Only) with future rate of interest @11.5% p.a from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants no. 2 and 3 and properties of Defendant No. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶38

Q..,.t'try

¶39

(OA. No. 145/2026)

¶40

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶41

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P A.. transcnbed by her corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of Jul. 2026)

¶44

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRES!D!NG OFFICER

¶45

d";ruw
A.sa. Rcflir,Uer
oiu,nweneatn

Icici Bank Limited v. Mahalaxmi Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mahalaxmi Agencies

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

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Sri Gudala Girish versus State Bank of India

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Murugu Sadasiva Naidu versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Sri Nagulapally Chandraiah

Edda Saidulu and Another versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited