Allowed

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. v. Lingaladinne Venkata Ravindra

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/560/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 29,63,449 with future interest and costs against a defendant who remained absent without representation.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 29,63,449 with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Lingaladinne Venkata Ravindra — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 560 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, Hydera bad. Rep. by its General power of Attorney.

.....Applicant

Versus

Lingaladinne Venkata Ravindra S/o. Ramareddy, D.No.7-2 -t}t3/51 A Vasavi Indraprastha Apartments Flat No.215, CZECH Cotony, Street No.1 Sanathnagar, Hyderabad * 500018.

¶9

......Detendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Anil Vydya

Defendants

: Ex_parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.29,63,449/- from the defendant with future interest @2% p.m. compounded with monthly from 03.03.2025 till the date of rea lisation along with costs.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 14.IL.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined K. Raja yaswanth, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through fr.im as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.os. n,.(,*

¶17

OA.No'560/2025

¶18

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the} Applicant Bank and Perused^the material Placed^{on record} '

¶19

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-for consideration is:-consideration is:-is:-}

¶20

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-for consideration is:-consideration is:-is:-} r^ r-l'16^.ac,Whether tlfe...Appli?dfltt&Ant4isi|EJntitffi^{lpp cenrrnrc i'} the claim made^{in the OA against the} Defendant?

¶21

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remained ex-parte'The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^{with the recitals in the documents viz', Exs' A'1 to} A.09 marked on^{behalfof the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of} the Applicant^{Bank againstthe 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'560/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendant^{is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.29,63,449l-^{with future interest @11o/o p'a'} simple, from the date^{of applicationtill the date of} realization;

¶24

ii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceedagainst} the^person and^{properties of the defendantfor} realization of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank^{is entitled for the costs.}

¶26

B. The Applicant Bank is directed^{to file Cost Memowithin 2 weeks} from the date of receipt or tnis order'ffii,\

¶27

OA.No.560/2025

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a coov of th.is order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., tianscribed ov rrim, coriciea] ;',r*ffi, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day ofJanuary, 2026).

¶30

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. v. Lingaladinne Venkata Ravindra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. v. Lingaladinne Venkata Ravindra

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

Indian Bank versus M/s. Camon Frames.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. S RTraders.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kakalwar Suresh

Bank of Baroda versus Veeramasu Jayamma

Bank of Baroda versus Doddi Prathap

Bank of Baroda versus Doddi Prathap