Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sunitha Lubricants.

DRT18 Feb 2026OA/652/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 24,36,771 against three defendants. Holding defendants jointly and severally liable, the Tribunal decreed payment with future interest and costs, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 24,36,771 with future interest @17.25% p.a. simple from application date till realization; directions for recovery enforcement and costs.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sunitha Lubricants. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1BTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 652 OF 2025

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

VerSuS

¶8

Sunitha Lubricants.,

¶9

Rep by its Partners Sunitha Singh Virender Singh Sekhewat, Plot No.31

¶10

F Ground, Near Ram Reddy Nagar

¶11

Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500055.

¶12

Sunitha Singh

¶13

Plot No.31, F Ground, Near Ram Reddy

¶14

Nagar, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500055.

¶15

Virender Singh Sekhewat

¶16

Plot No.31, F Ground, Near Ram Reddy

¶17

Nagar, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500055.

¶18

...... Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Anil Vydya

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.24,36,77t1- from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @ 2olo p.m. compounded monthly from 16.06.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs. . {\o*-2..r-,ir\IA'

¶24

OA.No.652/2025

¶25

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 27.L0.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined Kalva Raja Yashwanth, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.OB.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶29

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

¶30

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.08 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.652/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶32

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,36,771l- with future interest @17.25o/o p.a. simple, from the date of apptication tiil the date of reatizationfik*U

¶33

OA.No.552/2025

¶34

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and propefties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Ceftificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of February, 2026).

¶39

(M**

¶40

(RAVESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sunitha Lubricants.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sunitha Lubricants.

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

Ganesh Rajesh versus Yms Finance Private Limited

Gummadavelli Ganesh versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Turpu Ramesh versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Pulluri Sairam

Canara Bank versus M/s. Chandana Apparels