Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Avula Jayasurya

DRT9 Feb 2026OA/452/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ICICI Bank Limited filed an Original Application against individual defendants for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 24,14,069.30 plus future interest and costs after issuing a loan recall notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, as the defendants failed to clear outstanding dues and remained absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 24,14,069.30 plus future interest @12% p.a. and costs. Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and debtors' assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Avula Jayasurya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Ogth DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRt cUMMADt cOpICHAND, pRESIDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 452OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

lClCl Bank Limited, lClCl Bank Towers, Financial District, Plot No. 12, Nanakaramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶6

Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Avula Jayasurya S/o, Avula Rangaiah, Age 36 years, Occ. Farmer H.No. 1-7111,

¶10

Achampet, Near Temple Nagakurnool, Mahabubnagar - 509 376, Telangana.

¶11

Also at -

¶12

H.No. 1-4812'1, Balmoor Mandal, Ramjipalle Mandal, Achampet, Achampet, Near Temple, Nagakurnool, Mahabubnagar - 509 376,

¶13

(oA. No. as21202s)

¶14

Mr. Avula Ram Sagar, S/o, Avula Rangaiah Age 36 years, Occ. Farmer H.No. 1-7111, Achampet, Near Temple Nagakurnool, Mahabubnagar - 509 376, Telangana.

¶15

Also at -

¶16

H.No. 1-48121, Balmoor Mandal, Ramjipalle Mandal, Achampet, Achampet, Near Temple, Nagakurnool, Mahabubnagar - S09 376,

¶17

Mr. Avula Swantantra,

¶18

D/o. Avula Rangaiah Age 36 years, Occ. NA H.No. 1-7111,

¶19

Achampet, Near Temple Nagakurnool, Mahabubnagar - 509 376, Telangana.

¶20

Also at -

¶21

H.No. 1-48121, Balmoor Mandal, Ramjipalle Mandal, Achampet, Achampet, Near Temple Mahabubnagar -

Defendants

fd-
tu
0g Fr8 2[28

(OA. No. 4s2l202s)

Counsel for the parties :

¶26

For The Appticant G. Adrian Kiran Raj For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 03.02.2026 Pronounced on 09.02.2026 Upload in website on 09.02.2026

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,14,069.30 ps. (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Sixty Nine and Paise Thirty Only) with future intere st @24.00o/o p.a with monthry rests from 30.09.2024 ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedules^property I to lll to OA.

¶29

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendants availed Loan facility under Kisan Credit card with interest @11.g1o/o p.a and executed dated 3'1.10.2019 in favor of the Defendant No. 3 stood as a Guarantor and

¶30

(oA. No. 45212025)

¶31

executed necessary loan documents in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants executed Simple mortgage Deed without Possession dated 29.10.2019 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 and issued Loan Recall notice dated 27.05.2024under section 13(2) o,f the SARFAEST Act, 2002 to the defendants. lnspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶32

¶33

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 03.02.2026.

¶34

¶35

Sri. K. Rajayaswanth, Manager oftheApplicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.g.

¶36

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

W.1, official of the Applicant Bank was relevant documents as Ex.A..1 to A.g. I hold that the Applicant Bank has *

¶40

(oA. No. 4s2l2O2S')

¶41

established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiiled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶42

ln the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶43

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.24,14,069.30 ps. (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fourteen Thousand sixty Nine and Paise Thirty onty) with future interest @1 2.oo% p.a with monthly rests from 30.09.2024 till the date of realization.

¶44

¶45

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to proceed against the Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedules of property ! to lll to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 1 to 3 towards reatization of the debt due.

¶47

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

¶48

Og FEB ?ill$

¶49

(oA. No. 4s2l202s)

¶50

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the

¶51

date of receipt of order.

¶52

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(Dictated^to, the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open murt on this the 09s day of Feb, 2026)

sd/(G. coPtcHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

a g rr,s wfr

JRUE'COPY
u,oki+
Der-;, pylgqasa6.

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Avula Jayasurya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Avula Jayasurya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Sai Computers Rep by its Partner Mr Sama Pavan Kumar versus Bank of Maharashtra

Canara Bank versus Megana Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Sajwarshka Powerlooms Industry

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shaik Noor Ahamed

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gollapudi Ravi Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Nagireddygari Prathap Reddy