Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Sai Venkateshwara Filling Station

DRT22 Apr 2026OA/995/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs.62,70,039.83 plus future interest and costs from the defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable based on undisputed documentary evidence filed under the nationalized loan transaction.

What did the court decide?

The defendants ordered to pay Rs.62,70,039.83 with future interest @8.50% p.a. and costs. Applicant directed to file cost memo.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Sai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 995 OF 2025

¶5

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

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Sri Sai Venkateshwara^{Filling '} Station., Rep by its Proprietor Kemmasaram Ramesh,^{R/o.H. No.944lAA2} Thoguta^(M & v), Siddipet^District Telangana - 502372.

¶9

Mr. Kemmasaram Ramesh Age Major, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.944lAA2, Thoguta^{(M & V)} Siddipet District, Telangana -^502372.

¶10

......Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the^APP|icant : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran^Raj

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: (LLLEL ::

The Applicant Bank^filed the^{present OA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.62,70,039.83ps as on^{10.10.2025from the defendantsjolntly} and severally with future^{interest@24olo p.a. with monthlyrests} from 10.10.2025 till the date^{of realisation along with costs.}

¶16

Summons served on^{D1 and 2 through paper publication'They were} set ex-parte on 0s.02.2026^{as cailed .or.Anwi::trsentation.}

¶17

OA.No.995/2025

¶18

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Kalva Rajayaswanth, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶20

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

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.09 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.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.995/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are joinly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.62,70,039.83ps with future interest @8.50o/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against

¶27

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.fu'"'t

¶29

OA.No.995/2025

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶32

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} opencourtonthisthe22"ddayof April,2026).

¶33

OW^

¶34

(PJ(MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Sai Venkateshwara Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Sai Venkateshwara Filling Station

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/s. D G Enterprises.

Union Bank of India versus Boyapati Mahesh

State Bank of India versus Samama Aufaqui

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Ssp Water Supply.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Mythri Techno Solutions Private Limited

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Kommu Rambabu