Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Ajmeera Suguna

DRT18 Feb 2026OA/929/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of a debt of Rs. 56,85,583/- along with future interest and costs against three joint and several respondents who remained ex-parte. The Tribunal directed sale of hypothecated vehicle and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs. 56,85,583/- with future interest; proceeds against hypothecated vehicle; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajmeera Suguna — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 929 0F 2025

¶6

ICICI Bank Limited., ICICI Towers, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. Ajmeera Suguna, W/o. Shivalal Age Major, Occ: Business,2-496 X-Road, Lingapur, Dandepalle Adilabad-504206, Telangana State.

¶10

Mr. Hari Naik, S/o. Ajmeera Age Major, Occ: Business,2-496 X-Road, Lingapur, Dandepalle Adilabad-504206, Telangana State.

¶11

Mr. Ajmira Chandra Shekar Naik S/o. Ajmera Hari Naik, Age Major Occ: Buslness,2-496 X-Road, Lingapur, Dandepalle Adilabad-504206, Telangana State.

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

: M/s. M. V. KINI

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.56,85,583/- as on 18.09.2025 from the defendants jointly and severally with future inteJest @24o/o p.a. with OY**

¶19

oA.NO.929/202s

¶20

¶21

monthly rests from 19.08.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶22

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set ex-parte on 70.02.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined K Raja Yashwanth, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 21 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.21.

¶24

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

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

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

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.21 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.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.929/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of tr/ryi"'x

¶30

oA.NO.929l202s

¶31

Rs.56,85,583/- with future interest @1 1.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs,

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 181h Day of February, 2026).

¶38

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Ajmeera Suguna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Ajmeera Suguna

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