Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
DHANALAKSHMI BANK vs SMT GARIGIPATI PADMA on 22 September 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL DWIVEDI,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated 22<sup>nd</sup> September, 2026
RA 01 OF. 2021 in OA 86/2009
Between
Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited, Kakinada Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Sri
K. Ramprasad
.... Petitioner/Applicant Bank
Versus
1. Smt Garigipati Padma, W/o. Late Venkata Rao, (Present Proprietor of M/s. G. V. Constructions) residing at Bendapudi Village, Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari District
2. Sri Garigipati Abhiram, S/o. Late Venkat Rao (died)
3. Smt Garigipai Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Rao, Residing at Bendapudi Village, Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari district
4. Sri N. Ch. Prasad, S/o. N.V. Rama Rao, Residing at D.No. 2-44-41, 2<sup>nd</sup>
Lane, Bhaskar Nagar, Kakinada
5. Sri G.V. Kesava Rao, S/o. Late G. Sri Ramalingeswara Rao, Residing at D.No. 3-44/1, Vijaya Gardens, Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada
6. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its rep. by its General Manager, situated at ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Savakar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025
....Respondents/Defendants
(Respondents 1,3 to 5 & 6 were called absent and set exparte Vide order dt. 20.08.2026 )
Ld Counsel for Applicant - Sri M. Padmakara Kumar & Sri V.J. David Raju
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
The applicant has filed the above Review application on 18.07.2013. After perusal of record I find that OA 86/2009 was allowed vide order dt. 16.04.2013 and this Tribunal issued Recovery Certificate vide order dt. 01.05.2013.
The petitioner filed MA 79/2013 in the above OA. The petitioner has also filed MA 123/2013 to return the documents. It reveals that MA 79/2013 is dismissed by this Tribunal and MA 123/2013 is disposed of by vide separate order sheet. After perusal of the common order passed in MA 79/2013 and MA 123/2013 I find that the then Presiding Officer of DRT had dismissed the condone petition. In MA 123/2013 this Tribunal directed the Ld. Registrar to return the original documents filed by the applicant bank to the applicant bank authorized officer under proper acknowledgment.
In Appeal No. 69/2016 Hon'ble Chair Person of DRAT, Kolkata vide order dt. 28.06.2017 allowed the petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay in filing the review application is condoned.
As per neat copy of RA dt. 26.06.2025 the applicant in this Review Petition has submitted that applicant bank has sold the schedule "B" property under SARFAESI proceedings for an amount of Rs. 90 Lakhs and credit this amount to the loan account of the deceased borrower G. Venkata Rao. The applicant bank has availed a Banker's Blanket Indemnity Insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited by paying premium amount to the said insurance company period from 31.12.2007 to 30.12.2008 and the unit of deceased principal borrower was duly covered under the said insurance policy. Mr. G. Venkata Rao Proprietor of M/s. G.V. Constructions (Principal Borrower) expired on 31.11.2008 within the insurance period and since then no payment had been made in to the loan account of the principal borrower, the applicant has involved the insurance policy with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and have received an amount of Rs. 53,49,195/- from the said insurance company. As per the terms of the said Indemnity Bond the applicant bank has to reimburse to the extent of the claim from the amount received from the heirs, legal representatives of the deceased principal borrower and guarantors. Applicant recovered an amount of Rs. 90 Lakhs by way of sale of property under SARFAESI Act and an amount of Rs. 53,49,195/- towards insurance claim. This Tribunal has not allowed the amount of Rs. 53,49,195/- to the realized from the Respondent.
As per review petition the applicant bank has incurred an expense of Rs. 8,35,376/- towards litigation expenses and other charges. The Respondent has not challenged the said amount. This Tribunal has not allowed the claim of the applicant bank for the reason that no documentary evidence of proof of such expenses has been filed by the applicant bank.
Original bills are now filed by the applicant bank. The bank is entitled to realize the said amounts of Rs. 53,49,195/- towards insurance claim and Rs. 8,35,376/- towards litigation expenses and applicant prayed to review the order dt. 16.04.2013. In OA 86/2009 this Tribunal has passed order on 18.04.2013. This Tribunal in para 7 as stated as follows:
*In the result, the OA is allowed with costs. Issue Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs. 1,62,68,255.03Ps minus Rs.90,00,000/- (realized on 25.7.2012) minus Rs.53,49,195/- (realized on 30.3.2013) to be worked out with simple interest @ 10% per annum thereon to be recovered from defendants 4 and 5 jointly, severally and personally from the date of OA till date of realization. D1 to D3, who are the legal representatives of deceased borrower G. Venkata Rao are liable to pay to the*
*extent of properties of deceased borrower G Venkata Rao lying in their hands and/or otherwise by sale of schedule mentioned properties, if any.*
*Accordingly issue Recovery Certificate. Let the copy be made available to the parties as per rule.*
After scanning the record it reveals that applicant bank has already received Rs. 90 Lakhs on 25.07.2012 and Rs. 53,49,195/- on 30.03.2013.
As per Review petition the applicant bank has also recovered Rs. 53,49,195 as insurance claim. Hence as per law the applicant bank may adjust the remaining amounts which was balance after payment of above two amounts but if any amount is excess after repayment of the total loan it is the duty of the bank to return the amount to the successor of the deceased borrower. In order dt. 16.04.2013 no order regarding the cost is given. Hence on this point in this Review petition any order cannot be given.
On the basis of above discussion this Review application is hereby disposed of without costs.
(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 22<sup>nd</sup> day of September, 2026)
22.09.2026 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM