Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Abbu Masri

DRT8 Sept 2026OA/301/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a Debt Recovery Application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of outstanding loan dues from two defendants who failed to repay their vehicle and top-up loans, establishing entitlement to interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 32,31,443.75 plus interest at 24% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Abbu Masri — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No.301 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

lClCl Bank Ltd., lClCl Bank Tower, Plot No.12, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy-500032. Telangana Represented by its Power of Attorney VERSUS 1. Sri. Abbu Masri S/o. Samad Masri, aged about 46 years, Rio. H.No. 1 9-2-24123N 1, Ali Bagh, Bahadurpura, Kind Darbar Hotel, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500064

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Smt. Arshiya Begum
Wo. Abbu Masri,
aged about 45 years
R/o. H.No. 1 9-2-24123N 1,
Ali Bagh, Bahadurpura,
Kind Darbar Hotel,
'lt
Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500064 '..)ii. ., ..:: Defendants
'..\ '' r '.6 - fi ,/ r
' r iy:;-'+ z ruY:ll,nuq-;
.:.. -.,,- $:;y;nr; 't ,I._!!
--t::-';l-l''-

¶8

(OA. No. 301/2026)

¶9

Counsel for the^parties:

¶10

For TheApplicant	RajenderaPrasad
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	01.09.2026
Pronouncedon	07.09.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	08.09.2026

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA^{againstDefendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.32,31,443.75. Ps^{(Rupees Thirty} Two Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred^{and Forty} Three and Paise Seventy Five Only) i.e a sum of^-

¶13

(i) Rs.23,46,938.75 Ps. with future rate of interest @24.00% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization,

¶14

future rate of interest @24.00o/o the date of this application till the

¶15

for sale of Hypothecated Movables as

¶16

Schedule of Property to OA.

¶17

(oA. No. 301/2026)

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants availed Vehicle loan facility of Rs.23,20,0001 repayable in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.56,357/- p.m with interest @15.260/0 and executed Unattested Deed of Hypothecation dated 25.05.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants hypothecated Vehicle morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Top up Loan facility of Rs.7,10,0001 repayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.19,g06/_ p.m with interest @14.75o/o and executed supprementar Unattested Deed of Hypothecation dated 2310.2024 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 on 03.02.2025 and issued Recall Notice dated 23.12.2025 to the defendants. rnspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 01.0g.2026.

¶20

Sri. Kalva Rajayaswanth, Power of Attorney Holder of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

Applicant Bank.

(OA. No. 301/2026)

The point that arise for consideration is whether the^Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against^the Defendants as^prayed for?

¶25

Defendants remained exparte. To^{substantiatethe case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the^{Applicant Bank was} examined and he exhibited^{relevant documents as Ex.A.1to} A.15. ln view of the above, I^hold that^{the Applicant Bankhas} established their claim^{made in} the^{OA against the Defendants} and hence the Applicant Bank is^{entitledto recover the claim} made in the OA with future^{interest and costs.}

¶26

ln the result, the^{presentOA is allowedwith costs, as under:}

¶27

The Defendants No. 1 and 2^{are jointly and severallyliableto} pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of^{Rs.32,31,443.75. Ps} (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Thirty^{One ThousandFour} Hundred and Forty Three and^{Paise Seventy Five Only) i.e} asumof^-

¶28

(i) Rs.23,45,938.75 Ps. with future rate^{of interest} @24.00o/o p.a from the date of this application till^{the date of} realization,

¶29

with future rate of interest @24.00%o of this application till the^{date of}

¶30

(OA. No. 301/2026)

¶31

9 The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the schedule of property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

'10. The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 1 and 2 towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶34

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

¶35

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07'h day of Sep , 2026)

¶38

sd/-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE qoPY
ffi"trrlll.l
6fir4, eYarRaeeP

Icici Bank Limited v. Abbu Masri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Abbu Masri

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ritish Rao Regulapati

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Srinivasulu Reddy

Mrs Uma Vani Indukuri versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohd.Manzoor Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan