Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Abhishek Builders

DRT17 Sept 2022OA/170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of an original application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of loan dues against two borrowers who defaulted on vehicle loans. The applicants' documents were scrutinized, and the claim for late fees was disallowed. The application succeeded ex parte, granting the principal amount with 10% annual simple interest and directing the sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.25,86,619.52 plus 10% simple interest; hypothecated and personal assets to be sold for recovery; injunction on alienating properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Builders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNCW

¶2

Present: A.H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No.170 of 2022

¶4

Daled : 17 .09.2022

¶5

	I^{lClClBank Limited,a bankingcompanywithin} Ithe^{meaningofBanking RegulationAct,1949,} havingitsRegisteredOfficeatlClCtbank Tower NearChakli Circle,Old^padraRoad, Vadodara -390007, GujaratCorporateOffice at lClClBankTowers, Bandra-KurlaComplex, BandraMumbai400051andamongstothersa RegionalOfficeatlClClBankLimited31/54, ShalimarTower,llFloorHazratganjLucknow- 226001 U.P.through Mr.Rajat Chandra,posted as Manager	....ApplicantBank
	Versus
1.	Abhishek Buildersthroughits partners havingits officeat:8-2153,VtlayKhand,GomtiNagar, Lucknow,UttarPradesh-226020
2.	Rajesh SinghS/oRam^patsinghNo617l2lSO3 VijayKhand-2,Gomtinagar,Lucknow-226010 UttarPradesh	...defendants
C C	ounselforapplicant-bank:sn@cate ounselforthedefendants: None

¶6

JUDGMENT

¶7

This original Apprication has been filed by the appricant Bank under

¶8

Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1gg3, against the defendants for the recovery ol Rs.21,21,566.30 (Rupees Twenty seven Lac, Twenty seven Thousand, Five Hundred sixty six and paisa Thirty onry) together with pendentelite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶9

The brieffactsofcasearethatthedefendant No.l isa borrowerandthe /-) defendant No.2 is co borrower in this o,A., the defendant Nos.1&2 approache,, [/ _l

¶10

-a

¶11

o.A. No. t70 of 2022

¶12

the applicant bank through loan application on 2310312019 for the grant of Vehicle loan facility of Rs.24.30 Lac including interest for the purchase of four Vehicles in which three of them BOLOERO PIK- UPCBC MS 1.3T and one BOL CAMPER GOLD VX 2WD BS F0RD ENDEAVOUR 2.2 LT|TAN|UM bearing Registration Nos. UP32 1N7893, UP32 1N9069, UP32 1N9070 and Up32 1N9068 which was duly considered and sanctioned, the amount was disbursed 0n 16.04.20'19 in the various loan accounts of defendanls on certain terms and condition as mentioned (Exhibit No.A-2)to this Original applicatbn. 3. To secure the Vehicle Loan facilities of Rs.24,30 Lac, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 signed and executed the Credit facility Agreement on j5,03.2019 in favour of the applicant bank (Exhibit No.A-3) Upon availing the Vehicle loan facilities, the defendants further again applied through loan application on 10.05.2019 for a Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.19.10 Lac for the purchase of three new Vehicles in which two of them BOLERO plK Up WD MS and one MAHINDM BOLERO CAMPER PS 4WD bearing Registration Nos. Up32 1N9607, UP32 1N9564 & UP32 1N9606 which was duly considered and sanctioned, the amount was disbursed on 23.05.2019 in various loan accounts by the applicant bank(Exhibit No.A4 to Exhibit No.A-7) in this originat application.

¶13

Further in order to secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No.1 as owner submitted the details of Hypothecated assets (Vehicle :- BOLOERO Camper Gold VX 2 WD BS lV, Registration No. Up32 1N7893 Engine No.TBK4C75738, Chassis No. lvlA1RY2TBKK3C92260, Vehicte :- .,1 // BOLOERO PIK-UP CBC MS 1.3T, Regishation No. UP32 1N9069 Engine /

¶14

^ ,//

¶15

O.A. No.l70 of 2022

¶16

No.TBK4B86020, Chassis No. MA1ZR2TBKK5B13903, Vehicle :- B0L0ER0 PIK-UP CBC MS 1.3T, Registration No. UP32 1N9070 Engine No.TBK4B88238 Chassis No. MA1ZR2TBKK5B13833 Vehicle :- BOLOERO PIK-UP CBC MS 1.3T, Registration No. UP32 1N9068 Engine No.TBK4B87555, Chassis No. MA1ZR2TBKKB13697) Registered in Transport Nagar RTO Lucknow( UP 32) with insurance in favour of applicant bank and further also submits the details of another hypothecated assets,(Vehicle :- BOLoERo PIK UP 4WD MS, Registration No. UP32 1N9607 Engine No.TBK1C38610, Chassis No. MA1ZC4TBKK1D42902, Vehicle :- BOLOERO PIK UP 4WD MS, Regiskation No. UP32 1N9564 Engine No.TBKlD50826, Chassis No. MA1ZC4TBKKlD42899 Vehicle :- ITiIAHINDM BOLOERO Camper PS 4WD, Registration No. UP32 1N9606 Engine No.TBK4A83419, Chassis No. MA1RU4TBKK3B89952) registered in Transpo( Nagar RTO Lucknow(UP 32) with insurance in favour of applicant bank (Exhibit No.A4) to this Original application.

¶17

To avail the repayment ofVehicle loan facility, the applicant-bank opened seven loan accounts in lhe name of the defendant No.l to maintain the Credit and debit of^granted facility.

¶18

After availing the various Vehicle loan facilities from the applicant-bank, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreements as required in the matter, the applicant-bank made all^possible efforts through oral^persuasion several applications and letteB, defendants were reminded many times by lhe applicail n Bank to pay the overdue amounts engaged in equated monthly installments or^I

¶19

o A N. I70 0f 2022

¶20

to regularize the loan accounts, but the defendants kept mum and have not come fonrvard to make any efforts regarding payment of dues, the various loan accounts of the defendants were remained inegular furtha after that the defendants did not care to deposit the amounts despite various assurances given by them Consequently, the said loan accounts of defendants classified as NPA on 13.05.202'lExhibit No.A-8) through certificates, as the applicanlbank issued Recall notice on 17.05.2021 (Exhibit No.A-9) through Registered Post to the defendants as a request for to pay the outstanding dues, but lhe Defendants did not paid heed to the same, hence, this original Application has been instituted.

¶21

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.27,27,566.30 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac, Twenty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty Six and paisa Thirty only)(Rs.4,77,293.231 in Loan account -1, Rs.3,35,332.171 in Loan accounl2, Rs.3,35,015.361 in Loan account-3, Rs.3,14,560.89/- in Loan account4, Rs.4,21,531.411 in Loan account -5, Rs.4,21,531.41/- in Loan account-6, Rs.4,22,301.83/- in Loan account-7) including interest as on 16.09.202'1, was lying due for payment, for which the defendants are.iointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The applicant bank filed the Statement of loan Account. (Exhibit No. A- 10) to this original application.

¶22

B. The cause of action for filing the^present application arose firstly on 16.04.2019 when the Vehicle loan Facilities was duly sanctioned by the applicant bank and the same were availed by the defendants on the execution

¶23

¶24

o.A. No.t70 of 2022

¶25

of necessary documents the cause of action arose again on vehicle loan facilities were availed by the defendants on the execution of necessary documents, The cause of action finally arose on when the Recall Notice dated 17.05.2021was sent to the defendants, recalling the entke outstanding dues as they failed to pay the same.

¶26

The summons was served upon the defendant through paper publications as well as paper publications despite availing opportunity, accordingly, the defendants opted not to contest the case before this Tribunal, hence the matter proceeded ex parte against the defendants

¶27

During the pendency of the 0.A., the applicant bank had moved an application for appointment of receiver on the ground that defendants is likely to part with the hypothecated Vehicle, the copy of the said application was sent through registered post, but the defendants did appear to contest the said application.

¶28

1 1. From the^perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants 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 clained in Original Application on the basis of documents and^pleading submitted by it.

¶29

ln support of the case Shri Rajat Chandra, Manager of the applicant bank has liled an affidavit.

¶30

'13. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit N0.10, it is^proved that defendants auailed^Vehicle I loan facilities for^purchase of Commercial vehicles from the applicanlbank by^Z

¶31

¶32

O..{. No.l70 of 2022

¶33

executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favor of the applicant-Bank, A perusal of the application, evidence, docunrnts relied upon clearly shows that defendants utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them by the bank, the applicantbank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of tre loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant through Certification U/s 2(A)(B) of Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891 (Exhibit No.A-6) lt is found that the applicant has also included certain amount on account of late payment penalty, cheque bouncing charges, interest on pending installments etc, I do not find any merit to grant these interesUcharges, the applicant bank is only entitled to the principal outstanding dues as filing of Original application on 09.02.2022 of Rs.27,27,566.30 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac, Twenty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty Six and paisa Thirty Only) (Rs.4,77,293.231 in Loan accounl -'1, Rs.3,35,332.171 in Loan account2, Rs,3,35,015.361 in Loan accoun!3, Rs.3,14,560.891 in Loan account4, Rs.4,21,531.411 in Loan account -5, Rs.4,21,53'1.411 in Loan accoun!6, Rs.4,22,301.831 in Loan accoun!7) in respect to Vehicle loan facilities as the account statement^produced by the applicant bank in not the conformity with the Principals laid down, Which is analogues to section 34 to the CPC, the Tribunal/court has discreation in awarding^pendentelite and future interest lam supported in viewed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBl vs Ravindra AIR 2001 SC 3095^pages. On the Basis of forgoing discussion, lnterest of^justice will be served if^pendentelite and future interest the applicant Bank could - l recover inierest factor first thereafter the Principal amount, if we award intere)

¶34

O.A. No.l70 of 2022

¶35

@10.140/0, @10.030/0,^{as on '16.09.2021as allegedlyclaimedby theapplicant} Bank in it's O.A. that will tantamount to undue enrichment of the applicant bank, thus it will be fair and reasonable to grant @10.00% per annum simple interest upto 16.09.2021 for pendentelite and future Period, I Opine that the defendant Nos.1&2 are Jointly and severally Liable to pay Rs.25,86,619.52 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac, Eighty Six Thousand, Six Hundred Nineteen and paisa Fifty Two 0nly)(Rs.4,56,065.201 in Loan account -1, Rs.3,17,331.171 in Loan account2, Rs.3,17,331.411 in Loan account3, Rs.2,96,482.901 in Loan account4, Rs.3,99,364.60/- in Loan account -5, Rs,3,99,364.601 in Loan accounl6, Rs,4,00,679.641 in Loan accounlT) together with interest granted @10.00%^{per annum simple with its costs,the Hypothecated assets of} defendants Nos.l&2 are liable to be sold for recovery amounts dues, along with Personal properties/assets of the defendants

¶36

'14. Accordingly, the defendant Nos.1&2 are 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 recovered from the secured assets, personal movable assets, immovable assets of the defendants and to sell the Hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶37

ln the result, the Original Application succeeds ex parte against the defendant Nos.1 & 2 with its costs. The bank has^proved the loan execution of security loan documents in favor of the bank and availment of credit facilities, The defendants are liable to repay the dues Jointly, severally as the

¶38

nVOotnpted assets as well as the personal properties/assets are liable lo be./ sotd./ ,/

¶39

o.A. No.l70 of 2022

¶40

This Tribunal also deem fit and judicious to appoint Sri Saurabh Srivastava S/o Shri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava Employee code : 408'159 Designation: Area Relationship Manager lClCl Bank limited Lucknow Branch as a receiver for taking possession of the hypothecated Vehicle, who will take

¶41

possession of the vehicle totally in accordance with law.

¶42

It is, therefore , ordered

¶43

(i) That the Original Application N0.170 of 2022 of the appticant bank for issuance of Recovery Certillcate to the tune of along Rs.25,86,6,19,52 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac, Eighty Thousand, Eighty Six Thousand, Six Hundred Nineteen and paisa Fifty two Only) with the interest @10.00%^{per annumwith monthly rest fromthe date} of filing of the Original Application i.e.09.02.2022 till the Loan/amount fulty liquidated and costs succeeds ex parte against the defendant Nos.1 & 2.

¶44

(iD The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of Hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.l. Act 2002), the amount, ifany, already recovered bythe sale of any hypothecated assels or otheMise shall be adjusted towards the debt, Only the balahce amount shall be recoverable, if the dues of the applicant Bank still remain unsatisfied, same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of defendants jointly and severally.

¶45

(iii) The defendants are here by restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing /

¶46

,"'

¶47

o.A. No.l70 0f 2022

¶48

with their properties/estates without flrst paying applicant-bank. (iv) Let Recovery Certiflcate be lssued 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by 12.2022 before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow. Judgment is pronounced in the Dated: 17.09.2022

Icici Bank Limited v. Abhishek Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Abhishek Builders

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Vishakha Collection

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Kumar Sharma

Icici Bank Limited versus Firoz Ahmad