Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Gantala Shankar

DRT13 May 2026OA/293/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Desa Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank against Gantala Shankar for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 32,20,912.40 along with future interest and costs arising from a defaulted personal loan.

What did the court decide?

The sole defendant is ordered to pay the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 32,20,912.40 plus future interest at 10.6% per annum simple from the date of application till realization, along with costs.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Gantala Shankar — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD , DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 293 OF 2025

¶4

ICICI BANK LIIVIITE D Having its Regional Offlce at ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.12, Nanakramg uda, Serilinga mpally, Ranga Reddy-500032, Telangana Rep by its Power of Attorney

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sri. Gantala Shankar S/o. Gantala Bhimla, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Employee, resident of H.No. 153, Indiramma Colony, lvlangalpally, Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad - 501506

¶8

... Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. R. Rajendra Prasad Counsel for the Defendant : Mr. J. Narender Kumar

N,+

oA.NO.293/202s

:: O-BSE-L ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 32,20,912.40^ps as on 03.03.2025 from the sole defendant with future interest @2470^p.a. from the date of filling the application till the date of realization along wlth costs.

¶14

The averments of the applicant bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that defendant applied for a^personal loan online on 09-06-2023. After^processlng the application, applicant bank sanctioned a personal loan of {30,00,000/- (Account No. EHYD00048211551) on 10-06-2023^(dated 10-06-2023 as^per the sanction record). The defendant subsequently committed defaults in repayment of the installments. Despite several reminders issued by the bank, the defendant failed to regularise the account or clear the outstanding dues, in consequence of which the bank declared the account as a NPA on 06-05-2024, in accordance with the guldellnes issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The bank issued a recall notice on 16-05-2024, demanding payment of <29,37,229/- as of 09-05-2024. However, the defendant failed to llquidate the outstanding amount within the stipulated^period. Having violated the terms of repayment of the said loan, the^present OA ls being flled.

¶15

Though the Sole Defendant entered appearance through his counsel Mr. J. Narender Kumar, did not choose to flle written statement. Accordingly, defendant's right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 13.11.2025.

¶16

oA.NO,293l2025

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Kalva Rajayaswanth, Manager, as AW-1 and marked g documents through him as

¶19

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8.

¶20

Sole Defendant right of adducing evidence was forfeited after affording sufficient opportunities vide docket order dated 22.04.2026.

¶21

Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant Bank whereas the right of Defendants to advance arguments was forfeited on 04.05.2026 after affording ample opportunity. Perused the material placed on record.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Applicant Bank, reiterated the contents of the OA, and submitted that the Sole Defendant, after availing the personal loan facilities, committed default in repayment despite service of the Demand Notice and repeated reminders. The learned Counsel further contended that the Applicant Bank is therefore entitled to the full relief claimed in the OA, having regard to the comprehensive documentary evidence placed on record as Exhibits A.1 to A.8 through the witness AW.1, and the recitals therein.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:

¶24

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

¶25

As stated supra, though Sole Defendant entered appearance through his counsel, he did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accor_dingly his right No'u

¶26

oA.NO.293/2025

¶27

was forfeited.^{Undersuch circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit} of AW.1^{coupled with the recitals'in Exs' A'1 to A'B markedon} behalf of the^{Applicant Bank remains unchallengedand un-} rebutted.Hence,IholdthattheSoleDefendantisliabletopay the OA claim to^{the Applicant Bank with future interestand} costs.

¶28

In the result, the^{present OriginalApplication} No.29312025^{is allowed as under:-}

¶29

i) The Sole Defendant^{is jointly andseverally} liable to^pay to^{the ApplicantBank a sumRs'} 32,20,912.40^{ps future interest @10'600/o} p.a. simple from the date of^{applicationtill} the date of realization;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

The Applicant Bank is directed^{to file Cost Memo within 2} weeks from the date of^{receipt of this Order.}

¶33

L2, Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this^{order to the parties} concern ed.

¶35

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by mein the open court on} this the 13th Day of May,^2026).

¶36

6.tvl-\

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Gantala Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Gantala Shankar

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

Bank of India versus M/s. Bhole Shankar Furniture.

Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Vangaru Hashushma

Sri D Vara Prasad versus Bank of India

Mr N Lakshmi Raman Mohan and Another versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited