Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mrs. Kunreddy Nagamani

DRT23 Feb 2026OA/635/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of dues from defendants. The court held that defendants failed to substantiate their claim of no opportunity or enforceability, leaving the bank's evidence unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.83,72,077.68 plus future interest and costs; proceeds against mortgaged properties and person/properties permitted; Recovery Certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs. Kunreddy Nagamani — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE^{23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B'COM,L.LB. (HONS.),M'A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO.635OF 2025.}

¶4

Between:

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited ICICI Bank Towers Financial District,^{Plot No.12} Nanakramguda,^Gachibowli Hyderabad. ReP^{bY its} Authorised Signatory^{and POA.} """'Applicant'

¶6

And

¶7

Mrs. KunreddY^Nagamani W/o KunreddY^NagiReddY Sirisa na^{ga nd la, Peddavura} Telangana, Nalgonda-508266'

¶8

Mr. KunreddY Nagi^ReddY S/o Kunreddy Chenna^ReddY Sirisanagandla,^Peddavura Telangana, Nalgonda-508266. ""'^Defendants'

¶9

Counsel For the Applicant^{:Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj'} Counsel for Defendants :^{Mr. Akkappa Srinivas.}

¶10

:: ORDER::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed^{the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery} of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993^{for recovery of a sum of} Rs.83,72,077.68Ps from defendants and their^{properties jointly} and severally with future interest @24olo^{per annumwith} monthly rests from 10.01.2025 till the date of^{realisationalong} with costs. u'4ff,",,2rrr* "^'t

¶12

oa.635/2025

¶13

The averments of applicant bank, as per the OA, briefly, are;

¶14

Defendants 1 and 2 are the borrower and the co_borrower of the Agri Term Loan for Kisan Credit Card and they availed credit facilities to a tune of Rs.73,20,000/_ vide sanction letter dated 29.04.2015. They executed loan documents including hypothecation deed dated 29.04.2025 and Memorandum of Deposlt of TiUe Deed bearing document No.2671 of 2015 dated 29.O4.2075 in respect of OA schedule properues. Defendants breached the terms in repayment. Despite recall notice dated 10.03.2023, defendants neither paid the dues nor made any attempts to close the loan account/Kisan Credit Card. The prospects of repayment being bleak, applicant filed the present OA for recovery of the dues.

¶15

Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement. The averments of the written statement, in brief, are:

¶16

Defendants deny liability citing statement of account relied on by the applicant bank being incomplete and the rate of interest charged to the loan account being contrary to the agreed terms. The documents are unenforceable and cannot be looked into since defendants were not given adequate opportunity to review the terms and conditions. The recall notice dated 10.03.2023 was issued without considering defendants financial situation and without providing adequate opportunity to respond. The default is on account of genuine financial difficulties but not wilful. Defendants are willing to repay the loan subject to providing them with a detailed statement of account, reasonable opportunity to negotiate reasonable settlement and manageable repayment plan. In view of the ,*'r,*t.z,, // /\ -1-a\ (--'/ 1:.-

¶17

¶18

oA.63512025

¶19

above reasons, defendants pray for dismissal of the OA with exemplary costs.

¶20

In order to prove its claim, the Applicant Bank examined K. Raja Yaswanth, Manager, as AW_1 and marked 7 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.7.

¶21

After filing of written statement, there is no representation on behalf of defendants. Hence, their right of adducing evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 29.01.2025.

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Defendants, right of advancing arguments was forfeited for non_ representation vide docket order dated 0g.02.2026. perused the material placed on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant bank submits that except pointing out unsubstantiated and baseress ailegations, defendants failed to take the case to its logical conclusions either by way of adducing evidence or by way of cross examination of AW.1 to disprove the exhibits placed on record by applicant bank. since the defendants faired to prosecute the case, applicant bank,s claim is unchallenged and unrebutted. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants in the interest of justice.

¶24

R The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiiled for the OA claim against the Defendants and against the OA sc h e d u I e O ro r" n,u t, 61ry*

¶26

oA.615l20zs

¶27

There is^{no denial of availmentof loan and default thereafter'It} is the specific^{contention of the defendantsthat they were not} given a reasonable^{opportunity and manageablerepaymentplan} to settle^{the loan account' However' except making bald} statements,^{defendantsdid not choose to adduce any evidence} in support^{of their allegations'They did not choose to place on} record any^{materialevidencingof their taking up saidissues any} timebefore.InfacttheloanwasavailedbydefendantsaSback as 29.04.2015.^{The applicantbank issuedrecall notice on} 10.03.2023.^{OA was filed on 27'06'2025' The sequencesof} developments^{from time to time show that the defendantshad} ample time^{to settle the loan accountamicably in between} 10.03.20231o27.06.2025'Therefore,theallegationofnot being^{given an opportunityto settle the loan account is baseless} and not acceptable.^{Under such circumstances' the Evidence} Affidavit of^{AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs'A'1 to A'7} marked on^{behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged} and unrebutted.^{Hence, I hold that defendantsare jointlyand} severally^{liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with} future interest^{and costs.}

¶28

In the result,^{the present Original Application No'635/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) the defendants^{are jointlyand severallyliable} to PaY to the apPlicant^{bank a sum of} Rs.83,72,077.68Ps^{along withinterest} @g'75o/o^{per annum simplefrom the date of} application till^{the date of realization;} Ow

¶30

¶31

OA.63sl2O2s

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of OA schedule propefties and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its debt;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realisation of its dues; and

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶36

t2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in official Web Portal.

¶38

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'ddayof February,2o26l.

¶39

OWO (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

Icici Bank Limited v. Mrs. Kunreddy Nagamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mrs. Kunreddy Nagamani

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

Sln Projects Pvt. Ltd. M Obilesh M Anuradha M Venkateshwarlu Sln Projects versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Bank of India versus M/s. Benex Industries

Canara Bank versus M/s. Eco O rganics India

Canara Bank versus M/s. Hydropneum Hydraulik India Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Kovvuri Nagesh Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/s. Chand Agencies