Allowed

M/s. Icici Bank Limited v. Cloud Revolute India Private Limited

DRT3 Aug 2026OA/823/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal examined an application by ICICI Bank for recovery of a loan against Cloud Revolute India Private Limited and two individuals. After the defendants failed to adduce evidence in their defense, the tribunal accepted the bank's evidence and held the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 53,51,286/- plus future interest at 16.10% p.a. simple; recovery certificate issued.

M/s. Icici Bank Limited versus Cloud Revolute India Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RO DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No: 823 OF 2025

¶5

M/s. ICICI BANK LIMITED, Registered Office situated at VADODARA, GUJARAT and Hyderabad Branch office Situated at Hyderabad, Represented by its Debt Manager And General Power of Attorney Holder

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. CLOUD REVOLUTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED D.NO. 6F, 1-98/1/ lSrC, 6F 6048, JAIN SADGURU CAPITAL PARK, BESIDE IMAGE GARDENS, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD^.5OO081

¶9

1. SUR]IT BASANTARAY FLAT NO 507, HARIZE RICH PARK APTS, BEHIND ICICI BNK, KOKAPET, HYDERABAD -5OOO74

¶10

1. GARIKAPATI NARENDRA NO. 4-50, GOTTIPADU, GUNTUR- 522019 ... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : 1,1r. Anil Vydya Counsel for Defendants 1 & 2 : lvlr. Arun Marripeddi Counsel for Defendant No.3 : Ex-parte

¶12

:: ORDER::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of

¶14

Rs. 53,51,286/- from the Defendants N*1 to 3 jointly and severally with

¶15

OA No.823/202s

¶16

2of5

¶17

further interest @ 2olo p.m. compounded monthty from 07.07.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶18

The averments of the Applicant Bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that defendants 2 & 3 approached the applicant bank for personal loan and credit facility of Rs. 50 Lakhs. However, defendants committed persistent defaults in repayment of the loan instalments, resulting in the loan account being classified as a NpA. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued a Loan Recall Notice dated 27-12.2024 calling upon the defendants to discharge the outstanding dues. Despite service of the said notice, the defendants failed to regularise the account or repay the outstanding amount, compelling the applicant bank to file the present OA seeking recovery of the outstanding dues.

¶19

Defendant No.1 & 2 filed a Wrttten Statement, contesting the maintainability of the OA both on facts and in law. The defendants, while denying all the averments made in the OA, contend that the same is false, vexatious and devoid of merits, having been filed with the sole intention of harassing the defendants and suppressing material facts. It is submitted that Defendant No.1 Company had availed a business loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the applicant bank on 29.02.2024 to meet its GST tiabitity and business requirements. The defendants contend that the loan account became irregular solely on account of temporary cash-flow constraints caused by delayed payments from overseas clients, and not due to any wilful default. It is further contended that substantial amounts remain recoverable from various foreign clients and that the financial difficulties were aggravated by the acts and omissions of certain former managerial personnel who were handling the company,s overseas operations and banking affairs. The defendants'further dispute the rate of interest, penal charges and the statement of account relied upon g{,the applicant bank, /ffi**

¶20

OA No.823/2025

¶21

3of5

¶22

contending that the same requires strict proof and proper certification under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. It is also submitted that the applicant bank failed to consider the defendants' requests for restructuring or moratorium in accordance with the RBI guidelines. On these grounds, the Defendants^prayed for dismissal of the OA in its entirety.

¶23

Summons served on 3'd defendant and was set ex-parte on 26.t2.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Mr. Kalva Rajayaswanth, Area Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 8 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-8.

¶25

The right of the defendants to adduce evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 06.05.2026, after affording sufficlent opportunities.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. The Defendants, desplte being granted ample opportunity, failed to advance oral arguments and, accordingly, their right stood forfeited vide docket order dated 14.07.2026. Perused the material placed on record.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments places reliance upon Exs.A-1 to Exs.A-8 marked through applicant evidence (AW-1) as proof of claim of the bank and submitted that the applicant bank is entitled for recovery of the outstanding amount together with future interest and costs.

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶29

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants? //1y',:olru Lz^r"'

¶30

oA No.823/2025

¶31

4of5

¶32

As stated supra, the defendants, apart from making general denials in the Written Statement, filing material papers and disputing the claim of the applicant bank, have faired to substantiate their defence by adducing any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The Defendants also did not choose to cross-examine AW-1 so as to discredit the testimony of the witness or challenge the genuineness and correctness of Exs.A-1 to A-8 relied upon by the Appltcant Bank. It is well setued that mere pleadings or bald assertions/ unsupported by evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of the facts pleaded. On the contrary, the Applicant Bank has placed on record both oral and documentary evidence in support of its claim. The testimony of AW-1, coupled with the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A-1 to A-8, has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Bank has successfully established its claim. Hence, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the O.A. claim to the Applicant Bank together with future interest and costs, in accordance with law.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.g23l2025 is a owed as under: -

¶34

(i) The Defendant No. 1 to 3 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs. 53,51,286/_ with future interest rate @ 16.10% p.a. simple from 07.07 .2025 till the date of reatization;

¶35

(ii) the applicant is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and ffi1."a

¶36

OA No.B2312025

¶37

5of5

¶38

(iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3'd day of August, 2026)

¶43

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDiNG OFFICER

M/s. Icici Bank Limited v. Cloud Revolute India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Icici Bank Limited v. Cloud Revolute India Private Limited

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Nagaraju Tadi

Idfc Bank Limited versus Ik Power Solutions

Ms Sri Aditya Hotels and Resorts versus State Bank of India

Gummadi Satyanarayana versus Karnataka Bank Limited

M/s. Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Singidi Dhanunjay