Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S.Ismail Traders

DRT10 Jul 2026OA/357/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the apex court recall application filed by ICICI Bank against defendants for recovery of a defaulted business loan. The court examined documents and witness testimony, finding the bank's claim established. Judgment ordered payment of principal and interest along with a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs.1,20,81,829.02 with interest; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S.Ismail Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE loth DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA. No. 357 OF 2026

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s lClClBank Limited, Plot No-12

¶6

lClCl Bank Towers Serilingampally Mandal, Gachibowli Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad-500012

¶7

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. lsmail Traders

¶11

Represented By Proprietor Mohd lmran

¶12

01d 9-11-1069/1, H NO 9-8-202

New Quilla Road,

Nizamabad - 503001

Mobile no:9247360950

Also at:

M/s. lsmail Traders

Represented By Proprietor Mohd lmran Hno:12-1-1312/1 Sy No 2889

¶19

Situated Baba Enclave, Arsapalli Nizamabad -'51 Mobile no:9247 ,,\

¶20

1o luLnx
.:,
I

¶21

(oA. No. 3s7/2026)

¶22

Mohd lmran S/o. Younus Mohammed Age:45 years; Occ: Business H.No 94-324, Barkat Pura, Nizamabad - 503001 Mobile no:9247360950

¶23

Rozmin Pariyani D/o. Mohammed Ameen Pariyani Age:42 Years; Occ: Business H.No 9-4-324, Barkat Pura, Nizamabad - 503001 Mobile no:9247360950

¶24

Mohammed Younus Rawani S/o. Abdul Raheem Rawani Age:68 years; occ: Business H.No 9-4-324, Barkat Pura, Nizamabad - 503001 Mobile no:9247360950

¶25

Defendants

¶26

Counsel for the parties :

¶27

For The Applicant For the Defendants

¶28

Reserved on

¶29

Pronounced on

¶30

Lotus Law Associates Exparte

09.07.2026

10.07.2026

10.07.2026

(OA. No. 3s7l2026)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,20,81,829.02 (Rupees One Grores Twenty Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Nine and Two Paise Only) with future rate of interest @9.85% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶40

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 avatled Business loan of Rs.1,00,00,0001 with interest @10.50% p.a and executed Memorandum of Entry dated 15.04.2021 in favor of^the Applicant Bank. The defendants no.2 to 4 stood as a^guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 24.03.2021^{in favor of the} Applicant Bank. The defendants enhanced the^{above mentioned} loan facilities and executed necessary loan documents^{in favor of} the Applicant Bank. The defendants created equitable^mortgage morefully mentioned in schedule of^property to OA^{and executed} Memorandum of entry dated 19.07.2023^{in favor of the applicant} Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants^{failed to}

¶41

the terms oisanction, hence the applicant^{bank classified} as NPA on 18.05.2025 and issued Loan Recall INotice datbd\rO4.07.2025 to the defendants .^{lnspite of several} -\xll 1 0 JUL¹⁰¹⁽ :r

¶42

(oA. No. 3s7l2026)

¶43

requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶44

J. Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.07.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶47

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?

¶48

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appllcant 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 entitled to^recover the^claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶49

the piesent OA is allowed with costs, as under^.

¶50

to 4 are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay to} total sum of Rs.1,20,81,829.02^(Rupees Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight ) 4 '&r-.,*#

¶51

(OA. No. 3s7l202G)

¶52

Hundred Twenty Nine and Two paise Only) with future rate of interest @9.85% p.a from the date of this application tilt the date of realization.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants no. 2 to 4 and properties of Defendant no. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶59

14.

¶60

J , /1't
' " .,"^'l.lti I ery
j. "'-tB sd/-
.'i" d$ (G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
1O JUL
1R]LGO:
ql**

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S.Ismail Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S.Ismail Traders

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

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Ooha Traders and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Vempati Sudha Rani

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vaibhava Laxmi SHO Group

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Shg Lingayipalli Group

T Eshwara Chary versus Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited