Allowed

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Mudavath Bichulu

DRT26 Mar 2026OA/594/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited against Mudavath Bichulu for recovery of dues along with interest and costs, holding the bank's claim and evidence sufficient in the defendant's absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.29,87,417/- with future interest; applicant entitled to costs and enforcement against property.

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Mudavath Bichulu — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 594 OF 2025

¶5

M/s. ICICI Bank Limited., Regional Office at Gachibowli Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder.

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Mudavath Bichulu, S/o. Sri Mudavath Tharya, Aged about 47 Years, Occ: Private Sector Employee, R/o.^{H. N} o.l7^{-l-38812A/B/t0} Ground Floor, Laxminagar, Saidabad Hyderabad - 500059.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

C/o. Epam Systems India^{PrivateLimited.,} Office at 1oth, 11th, 12th Floor, Unit^No,2,3 Salarpuria Sattva Knowledge City,^{Plot No.2} Phase 1, Survey No.B3/1, Raidurgam^Village Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 500081.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

3-40, Laxmapur BK, Amrabad^{VTC,LaxmapurPO} Amrabad, Mahbubnagar District,^{Telangana-509201.}

¶13

...... Defendant

¶14

Counsel for the APPlicant : Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed^{the present OA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.2e,B7,4L7l- as on t7.0s.202s "il#;Sndant with future

¶19

OA.No.594/2025

¶20

,''

¶21

interest @24o/o^p.a. compounded^{with monthly} rests from 18.05.2025 till the date of^{realisation alongwith costs'}

¶22

Summon served on^{sole defendant throughpaperpublication} and no

¶23

was set ex-parte on 06.10.2025 as^{called absent and} representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined N^{Chandrasekhar, Regional} Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 07 documents^through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.^Perused the^material pla ced o n reco rd .

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

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

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A. 1to A.07 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.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.594/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.29,87,417l- with future interest @10.60lo 44"

¶31

OA.No.594/2025

¶32

¶33

p.a.Simple,fromthedateofapplicationtillthedateof realization;

¶34

ii) the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceedagainst} thepersonandpropertiesofthedefendantfor realization^{of its dues;}

¶35

iii) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶36

Cost Memo^{within 2 weeks}

¶37

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file} from the date^{of receipt of this Order'}

¶38

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶39

Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcerned. (Dictated to the steno.,^{transcribed by him, corrected,iigneA and pronounced by me in the} open court^{on this the 26th day of March,2026l,'}

¶40

Owr!* (nn(esr-rwAR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Mudavath Bichulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Mudavath Bichulu

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

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Bagat Shopping Mall.

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja versus Bank of India

Mrs K Vinodini versus Indian Bank

M/s. Bank of Baroda. versus Sri. Ravi Amgoth