Allowed

M/S Icici Bank Limited v. Andem Panduranga Reddy

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/235/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, the court allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank to recover dues of Rs. 32,14,985.92 plus interest from a sole defendant who appeared ex parte. The claim was secured by hypothecation of a vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The defendant ordered to pay Rs. 32,14,985.92 with future interest at 16% p.a. simple interest; recovery certificate to be issued; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other prope

M/S Icici Bank Limited versus Andem Panduranga Reddy — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE22Nd DAY OF ]UNE, 2026}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWARKoTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶3

PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{No: 235 OF 2026}

¶5

M/s. ICICI Bank^Limited, Having its Registered^Office nt land Mark^{Race Course Circle,} Vadodara-390^{007 and} Having its corPorate^{office at} ICICI Bank^{Towers,Bandra} Kurla ComPlex,^{Bandra (East),} Mumbai^{- 400 051, and} Regional office^{at Gachibowli,} Seiilingampally^{Mandal,Hyderabad} Represented^{by its Powerof Attorney Holder}

¶6

.......Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Andem Panduranga^ReddY, S/o. Sri Andem^ChandraReddY Aged about^{38 years, occupation business} Rio. H.No.9-tt}l7,^{Chenna Reddy Enclave,} Road No. 3,^{Big Bazar Line, Peerzadiguda} Hyderabad^{- 500098}

¶9

Also at H.No. 2-20-17 121,^{Laxmi Ramnagar, Chilakanagar} Uppal, Hyderabad -^sOOoSg

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel^{for the Applicant} : Mr' S' Nagesh^Reddy Counsel for^{the Defendant: Ex-parte}

d:?ww'

oA.NO.23s/2026

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 32,14,985.92 ps as on 28.07.2025 from the sole defendant with future interest @ 24o/o p.a. with monthly rests from 25.Lt.2025 till the date of realization along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶16

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper publication and was set exparte on 19.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Kalva Rajayaswanth, Area Relationship Manager, as AW_1 and marked B documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.B.

¶18

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is: _

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiiled for the ctai t h e De fe n I n? :12 z ;, ; r";, ; : ::i :: vehicle?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs,A.l to A.g marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Owu

¶22

oA.NO.23sl2026

¶23

Hence, I^{hold that the Defendantis liable to pay the OA claim to} the Applicant^{Bank with futureinterestand costs'}

¶24

In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo'23512026is} allowed^{as under: -}

¶25

The Sole^{Defendant is liable to pay to the}

¶26

i) Applicant^{Bank a Rs' 32,14'985'92 ps with} future interest^{@ 160lo p'a' simple from the} date of^{application till the date of realization;}

¶27

the OA^{claim issecured bY way of}

¶28

ii) hypothecation^{of vehicleas describedin the} schedule annexed^{tothe OA and the} applicant^{bank is entitledto proceed against} the same^{to realiseits debt;}

¶29

iii) the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof} defendant^{for realization of its dues;}

¶30

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶31

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from ine^{date of receipt of this Order'}

¶32

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶33

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} lOictateo^{to the steno, corrected,signedand pronouncedbv m%the-onencourt on} O

¶34

itristtrezz"dDayofJune,2026)' //.)3";,O,,tn 1nh!'r6sntfnR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

M/S Icici Bank Limited v. Andem Panduranga Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Icici Bank Limited v. Andem Panduranga Reddy

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.