Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Firoz Ahmad

DRT17 Sept 2022OA/169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte proceeding under the RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a vehicle loan. The claim was reduced by omitting late fees and penalties, awarding 8% interest, and appointing a receiver to sell the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.29,24,767 plus 8% p.a. interest; Receiver appointed for hypothecated vehicle; Sale of hypothecated/personal assets authorized.

Icici Bank Limited versus Firoz Ahmad — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN TI{E DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLTNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A.H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No.169 of 21122

¶4

Dated: 17.09.2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, a Banking Company under the Banking Regulation Act,l949 having its Registered Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujrat390007 and Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex ,Mumbai-400051^{and the amongst other} places in the country, a Branch Office at ICICI Bank Ltd.,31l54,i Shalimar Tower II Floor, Hazratganj, Lucknow through its constituent authority Mr. Rajat ...Applicant Bank Chandra, Manager Versus

¶6

Firoz Ahmad S/o Tufail Ahmad R/o E- 4/698, Yaibhav Khand, Gomti Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Lucknow-226010 U.P.

¶7

...Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the applicant-bank: Shri Shyam Kumar Ray, Advocate Counsel forthe defendant : None

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

l. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section l9(l) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.29,70,872.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Seventy Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Two Only)together with pendentelite and future interest, costs and other /l reliefs etc. // r ,\ t, // ,/

¶11

o.A. No.l69 0f 2022

¶12

¶13

The brieffacts ofcase are that the defendant approached through vehicle loan application dated 25.06.2018 to the applicant bank for grant of Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.40,65,001/- for purchase of VOLVO XC90, which were duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant Bank vide on its disbursed in account dated 29.12.201g on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No.A-l & Exhibit No.A_2) to this Original application.

¶14

To secure the vehicle loan facility of Rs.40,65,001/-, the defendant executed and signed security documents like credit facility agreement dated 25.06.2018 along with deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of attorney in favor of the applicant-bank (Exhibit No.A-3) to the Original Application.

¶15

Further in order to secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant as owner submitted the details of hypothecated assets as (Vehicle :- VOLVO XC 90 D5, Registration No. I_Ip 32 KJ0004, Engine No.2664242, Chassis No.YVILF68ACKI425455) was duly Registered in Transport Nagar RTo Lucknow in favour of applicant bank(Exhibit No.A-4) to this Original application.

¶16

For availing the aforesaid Vehicle loan Facility, the applicant Bank had opened one loan account in the names ofdefendant in order to maintain the account of above said facility.

¶17

After availing the aforesaid Vehicle Loan facility, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreement, the defendant was reminded

¶18

o.A. No. t69 0f 2022

¶19

several times by the applicant-bank to regularize the loan account but the loan account of the defendant were remained irregular and the defendant did not care to deposit the amount or to adjusuregularize the account despite various assurances given by the defendant. consequently, the said loan account ofthe defendant was classified as NPA on 16.08.2021as per RBI guidelines tt.r*R.. the applicant-bank sent recall notice dated 17.05.2021(Exhibit No.A-6)but he failed to repay the same as the loan account of the defendant is still un liquidated, hence this Original Application has been instituted.

¶20

As per books of the bank maintain in the usual and Ordinary course of banking business an outstanding Rs.29,70,g72.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Seventy Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) including interest upto 08.11.2021 were lying due for payment, for which the defendant is liable to repay the same, which he did not pay despite of repeated request and demand the bank has filed the statement of loan account (Exhibit No.A-5) to this original application.

¶21

The cause ofaction for filing the present applicatiqn arose firstly when the aforesaid vehicle loan facility were granted by the applicant Bank on 29.12.2018 the same were availed by the defendant on the execution of necessary documents and finally arose on 17.05.2021 when the applicant bank issued the recall notice to recalling the entire outstanding dues as he failed to pay the same.

¶22

g. The summons were served upon the defendant through registered /l post as well as by publication, but the defendant had not appear befor{ t,

¶23

O.A. No.l69 of 2022

¶24

¶25

the Tribunal to contest their case, hence the matter proceeded ex- parte against the defendant.

¶26

During the pendency of O.A. the applicant bank had moved an application for appointment of receiver on the ground that defendant is likely to part with the hypothecated vehicle the copy of the said application was sent through registered post, but the defendant did not appear to contest the said application.

¶27

From the persual of the record, it is evident that the defendant were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendant opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleadings submitted by it.

¶28

12, In support of the case Shri Rajat Chandra, Manager of Applicant Bank has filed an Affidavit.

¶29

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as on Exhibit No.A-l to Exhibit No.A-7, it is proved that defendant had availed the commercial vehicle loan facility from the applicant bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favor ofapplicant-bank, A persual ofthe application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly shows that defendant utilized the above loan facility granted to him by the bank, the applicant bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary counse of bafuine/) business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had als$/ " ,,/.

¶30

O.A. No.l69 of 2022

¶31

charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. It is found that the applicant has also included certain amount of late payment penalty, cheque bouncing charges, interest on pending instalments, etc I do not find any merit to grant these interest on pending instalments etc, I do not find any merit to grant these interest/charge, the applicant bank is only entitled to the principal Outstanding dues as filing of Original application on 23.02.2016 of Rs.29,70,872.00(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) In respect to the vehicle loan facility as account statement produced by the applicant bank is not the conformity with the principals laid down, I am supported in my view by the Hon'ble Supreme court in a case titled cBr v/s Ravindra AIR 2001 SC 3095 pages On the basis of forgoing discussion, interest of Justice will be served if pendentelite and future interest the applicant bank could recover interest factor first thereafter the principal amount, if we awarded interest claimed@ 10.01% as allegedly claimed by the applicant bank, in its O.A., that will tantamount to undue enrichment of the applicant bank, thus it will be fair and reasonable to grant @8.00% per annum simple interest as on 16.02.2022 for pendentlite and future period, I opine that the defendant is liable to repay Rs,29,24,767.00( Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Twenty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) together with interest granted @8.00o/o per annum with its costs, the

¶32

O.A. No.I69 of 2022

¶33

¶34

hypothecated assets ofthe defendant is liable to be sold for the recovery amount dues, along with personal properties/assets of the defendant.

¶35

Accordingly, the defendant is directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the Hypothecated assets as well as personal assets/properties of the defendant.

¶36

In the result, the original Application succeeds as ex parte against the defendant with its costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in favour of the bank. the liability of defendant is several as hypothecated assets as well as the personal properties/assets is liable to be sold.

¶37

This Tribunal also deem fit and judicious to appoint Sri saurabh Srivastava s/o shri Rakesh chandra Srivastava Employee code: 40g159 Designation: Area Relationship Manager ICICI bank Lucknow Branch as receiver for taking possession of the hypothecated vehicle, who will take possession of the vehicle totally in accordance with law.

¶38

It is, therefore, ordered

¶39

(i) That the Original Application No.l69 of 2022 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs. 29,24,767.0}(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Twenty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) along with the interest @ 8.00% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the t,/f) Original Applicationi.e.t6.02.2022 till the loan fulty tiquidated.( ..,

¶40

o.A. No. r69 0f 2022

¶41

¶42

and costs succeeds and is hereby proceeding ex parte against the defendant.

¶43

(ii) The applicant- bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale ofhypothecated assets ( ifnot sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.L Act 2002), the amount, if [ny already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets/properties or otherwise shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶44

(iii) The defendant is to here by restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/ estates without first paying the claim ofthe applicant- bank.

¶45

(iv) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s l9(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 17.12.2022 before Recovery Officer,^DRT, Lucknow.

¶46

(v) The applicant bank is directed to file a memo of cost^{for preparing} Recovery Certificate uls^{19(22) of the Recoveryof DebtsDue to} Bank and Financial Institutions^Act,l993.

¶47

Judgment is^{pronouncedin the open court.}

¶48

Datedl7.09.2022

¶49

(A.H.KHAN) Presiding Officer

Icici Bank Limited v. Firoz Ahmad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Firoz Ahmad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Haq Ali versus Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M S Rupali Tex Chem and

M S Anant Poly Fab versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Builders

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Vishakha Collection

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Kumar Sharma