Allowed

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Peddugaradaihgari Ganeshwer Reddy

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II at Hyderabad allowed the bank’s OA for recovery of Rs. 28.95 lakh with future interest and costs, holding the defendant liable based on unchallenexed documentary evidence presented in an ex-parte hearing. Recovery proceedings directed.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of sum of Rs. 28,95,768/- with future interest and costs; direction to file cost memo and issue Recovery Certificate.

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Peddugaradaihgari Ganeshwer Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE OgTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Appllcation No: 557 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Legal Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Peddugaradaihgari Ganeshwer Reddy S/o. Peddu Mallareddy, 8/5, Nakkalavandlapalli Nooliveedu, Shivalayam, Cuddapah Dist Andhra Pradesh - 516267.

¶8

......Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Anil Vydya

Defendants Ex-parte

:: [f,[ff,

L. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.28,95,768/- from the defendant with future interest there on @2olo^{p.m. compounded} with^monthly from^03.03.2025 till^{the date} of realisation along with costs.

¶14

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement Refused, hence deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 05.08.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined K. Raja Yaswanth, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him2s Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.9.

¶16

OA.No.557/2025

¶17

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank^{and perused the} material^placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶20

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

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte.^{The Evidence} Affidavit coupled with the recitalsⁱⁿ the^{documents viz., Exs.A.1 to} A.09 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the^{claim of} the Applicant Bank against the Defendant.^Hence, I,hold^{that the} Defendant is liable to^pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the^present Original Application No.55712025^is allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.28,95,768/- with future interest @10.99olo 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 defendant for realization of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶26

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 from the date of receipt of this otdetfiW.L\1

¶27

oA.No.557l2025

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned.} (Dlctated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and^{pronouncedbyme in the} open court on this the 09th day of January,^2026).

¶30

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Peddugaradaihgari Ganeshwer Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Peddugaradaihgari Ganeshwer Reddy

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

State Bank of India versus Chekarla Narayana Swamy

V Prameela and v Rajasekhar versus Punjab National Bank

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Nerella Sathish Goud

Bank of India versus M/S S a Fashions

Bank of India versus Mr. Anish Kumar Kommineni

Bank of India versus M/s. Arktech Enterprises.