Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Silamma Gari Habibulla

DRT24 Apr 2026OA/238/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 33,61,349/- with future interest and costs against the defendant after the latter remained ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 33,61,349/- with future interest @ 10.75% p.a. simple from application date till realization plus costs; plaintiff entitled to proceed against defendant's person and properties fo

Icici Bank Limited versus Silamma Gari Habibulla — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 238 OF 2026

¶4

M/s. ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, Serilingam^pa lly Mandal Ranga reddy District. Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder.

¶5

... .Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Silamma Garl Ha bibulla Aged about 39 Years, R/o.H.No.3-83 Regadiguduru Velugodu Mandapam

¶8

Regadi Gudur, Kurnool - 518508.

¶9

.... .. Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant :^{Ivlr. S. Nagesh Reddy}

¶11

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶12

:: O-LLE& ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA^{for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.33,61,349/- as on 25.11.2025 from the^{defendantwith future} interest @2490^p.a. compounded at^{monthlyrests from 26.11.2025} till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶14

Summon served on sole defendant and^{was set ex-parte on} 23.O4.2026 as called absent and^{no representatlon.}

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Kalva Rajayaswanth,^{Legal Manager} as AW-1 and marked 04 documents through^{him as Ex. A.1 to Ex.} A.04. firyc+u

¶16

OA.No.238/2026

¶17

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for^{the Applicant Bank and perusedthe} material Placed on^record.

¶19

The^point that arlses^{for considerationis:-}

¶20

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled for} the claim made in the OA^againstthe Defendant?

¶21

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remainedex-parte.The Evidence} Affidavit coupled with the^{recitalsin the documentsviz.,Exs.A.1 to} A.04 marked on behalf of the^{Applicant Bank clinchesthe claim of} the Applicant Bank against the^{Defendant.Hence, I hold that the} Defendant ls liable to^pay the^{OA claim to the Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.238/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to^{pay to the ApplicantBank a} sum of Rs.33,61,349/-^{with future interest @10.75olo} p.a. simple, from the date of application till the^{date of} realization;

¶24

ii) the applicant bank is^also entitled^{to proceed against} the person and^properties of^{the defendantfor} rea lizatlon of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶26

The Applicant Bank is directed to file cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receiPt of^this o,a.fl$!*v

¶27

OA.No.238/2025

¶28

¶29

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶30

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 24'h day ofApril, 202 b'^- 7)g<..r*'<1 /( ,//'-1\rrvud' t-.,

¶31

(PJ(MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Silamma Gari Habibulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Silamma Gari Habibulla

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

Indian Bank versus Mr. Shaik Ameer Bhasha

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Aaradhana Kanagala

M N Anjaiah versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/s. Dynamic Electronics

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Karthik Enterprises

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Inumula Jagannadham