Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Manik Enterprises

DRT14 Oct 2022OA/607/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 23,51,173 plus interest. Despite the bank claiming 24% interest, the Tribunal exercised discretion to award 9% simple interest from the date of filing, considering the impact of the pandemic and market rates, and ordered a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 23,51,173 plus 9% simple interest from 11.01.2022; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to recover from sale of assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Manik Enterprises — Specific Performance | DRT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

DATED THE 14^th DAY OF OCTOBER , 2022

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 607/2022

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited, a body corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and having its registered office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007 and its corporate office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai400051 and having Branches all over India and one of its Branches situated at 1^st Floor, near N.K. Sharma Office, Chandigarh-Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab through its Authorized Signatory, Mohd. Vajid

¶5

…..Applicant Bank

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. M/s Manik Enterprises through its proprietor, Village and Post Office Bhud-Kalan, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135001 (PAN No. AYJPK1212D)

¶8

2. Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand, Proprietor M/s Manik Enterprises R/o Village Bhud-Kalan (67), District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135001

¶9

3. Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand R/o Village Bhud-Kalan (67), District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135001

¶10

…..Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Garg counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted on 28.03.2022 by the applicant bank under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) against the defendants for recovery of Rs.23,51,173/(Twenty Three Lacs, Fifty One Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Three only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank, who is

¶14

OA NO. 607/2022 ICICI BANK VS M/S MANIK ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS 2

¶15

competent to institute the OA as per Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019 Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of Term loan of Rs.35,53,000 for purchase of a commercial vehicle vide Preliminary Credit Application Form dated 26.02.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy)

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facility of Rs. 35,53,000 to the defendants vide Credit Facility Application Form dated 26.02.2018, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.02.2018 Annexure-A4 (copy) and Tax Invoice dated 23.02.2018, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan account became irregular. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 20.02.2021, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, a sum of Rs.23,51,173/- (Twenty Three Lacs, Fifty One Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Three) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of accounts, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶21

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶22

OA NO. 607/2022 ICICI BANK VS M/S MANIK ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS 3

¶23

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.07.2022.

¶24

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶25

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case for recovery of amount sought against the defendants. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A7 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,51,173/-(Twenty Three Lacs, Fifty One Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Three only) from the defendants.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @ 24% per annum.

¶28

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses,

¶29

OA NO. 607/2022 ICICI BANK VS M/S MANIK ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS 4

¶30

purpose of loan, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.23,51,173/-(Twenty Three Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Three) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 11.01.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the defendants shall be joint as well as several. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated properties of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets/properties of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 17.11.2022.

¶34

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶35

Announced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2,Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Manik Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Manik Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Lavanya Constructions versus Karur Vysya Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/s August Poultry Vihar and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Vasisth Layer Firm and Others

State Bank of India versus M S Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Private Limited

Shree Nivasan Sales versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Ms Kashmir Apple Traders versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited