Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Messers Vinod Kumar and Company

DRT16 Sept 2022OA/807/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank filed an original application for recovery of a defaulted small business loan. The Tribunal dismissed the ex parte proceedings by finding the claim substantiated by documentation. It allowed the application, directing the appellant to pay the principal sum with 10% per annum simple interest from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.18,44,549.14 with costs and 10% per annum simple interest w.e.f. 17.01.2011; liberty to enforce via SARFAESI Act or attachment/sale of assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Messers Vinod Kumar and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THE 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2022

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.807/2022

¶4

ICICI BANK LIMITED, SCO 129-130, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009 through Mr. Ompal Tamak, Debt Recovery Manager

¶5

…..Applicant Bank

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Vinod Kumar and Company, 571/1, Naya Mohalla, Mochpura Bazar, Near Barnala Mkt., Ludhiana (Punjab) through its Proprietor Mr. Atish Garg

¶8

…..Defendant

¶9

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Garg proxy counsel for Sh. D.K. Singal, counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Present Original Application was instituted on 17.01.2011 by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of

¶12

Rs.18,44,549.14p/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Nine and Fourteen Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Ompal Tamak, Debt Recovery Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application. A copy of general power of attorney is Annexure-A1 .

¶13

The brief facts of the Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of small business loan overdraft facility of Rs.10 lacs vide copy of credit arrangement letter dated 11.06.2007, Annexure-A2. Copy of business loan application form is Annexure-A3.

¶14

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facility to the defendant vide copy of limit set up memo, Annexure-A5, as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶15

OA/807/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS. M/S VINOD KUMAR AND COMPANY 2

¶16

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, defendant executed master facility agreement dated 12.06.2007, Annexure-A4.

¶17

It is further the case of the applicant that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan account became irregular which was declared as NPA. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 11.12.2010, Annexure-A6, the postal slip of which is Annexure-A7, but to no avail.

¶18

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, a sum of Rs.18,44,549.14p/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Nine and Fourteen Paisa Only) is recoverable against the defendant vide statement of account, Annexure-A8 .

¶19

Since the defendant did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank brought the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate. 6. Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of defendant thus, defendant was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 23.05.2022.

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ompal Tamak, Debt Recovery Manager of the applicant bank was filed.

¶21

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

¶22

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A8 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan

¶23

OA/807/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS. M/S VINOD KUMAR AND COMPANY 3

¶24

facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant 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.18,44,549.14p/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Nine and Fourteen Paisa Only) from the defendant.

¶25

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @14% per annum with monthly rests. In copy of limit set up memo, Annexure-A5, rate of interest has been mentioned @17.50 % per annum with monthly rests.

¶26

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, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loan amount and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶27

In the result, the Original Application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum Rs.18,44,549.14p/(Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Nine

¶28

and Fourteen Paisa Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 17.01.2011 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of the property of the defendant 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.

¶29

OA/807/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS. M/S VINOD KUMAR AND COMPANY 4

¶30

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 of defendant. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 26.10.2022.

¶33

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

¶34

Announced in the open Tribunal

¶35

(M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2,Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Messers Vinod Kumar and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Messers Vinod Kumar and Company

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

Ramakantkumar Ambalalbhai Jaiswal versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Jai Bhole Makana Udyog

Uco Bank versus Dhrub Enterprises

Shri Jashbha Somabhai Chavda and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Ms Fashion Dot Com versus Punjab National Bank

Vipul Ramniklal Vora versus Hdb Financial Services