Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Balvinder Kumar

DRT26 Jul 2023OA/1093/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under the RDBFI Act for recovery of Rs. 20.31 lakhs from the defendant who failed to repay a vehicle loan. The court granted a uniform simple interest rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,31,579 with future simple interest at 7% per annum from 01.07.2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Balvinder Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1093/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 26^th DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited , having its Registered Office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 inter alia having a Bank at Chandigarh, through its Attorney/ Authorized Representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Balvinder Kumar S/o Sh. Balak Ram R/o House No. 703/B, GH 10 Sector-24, Panchkula-134109

¶9

…..Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager (GPA holder) for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 17.03.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted 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 defendant for recovery of Rs.20,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand

¶13

Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank stated to be

¶14

OA/1093/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALVINDER KUMAR 2

¶15

competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs.18,74,343/- vide preliminary credit facility application form dated 23.10.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide credit facility application form dated 23.10.2020, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed unattested deed of hypothecation dated 23.10.2020, Annexure-A4 (copy). Registration details of vehicle is Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank 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 was declared as NPA because it became irregular. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide recall notice dated 27.12.2021, Annexure-A8 (copy) and dispatch details, Annexure-A9 (copy), but to no avail.

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.20,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per foreclosure statement dated 15.03.2022,

¶21

OA/1093/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALVINDER KUMAR 3 Annexure-A6 (copy) and statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶22

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

¶23

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.03.2023 .

¶24

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

¶25

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

It was argued by Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A9 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant 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

¶27

OA/1093/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALVINDER KUMAR 4

¶28

Rs.20,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty lacs Thirty One Thousand

¶29

Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) from the defendant.

¶30

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In preliminary credit facility application form dated 23.10.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @7.8% per annum.

¶31

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, purpose of loan, i.e. purchase of vehicle, quantum of loan and 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 @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.20,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty lacs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the

¶33

OA/1093/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALVINDER KUMAR 5

¶34

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 26.09.2023.

¶37

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

¶38

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Balvinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Balvinder Kumar

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

Uco Bank versus M/s Arunachal Valley Cold Storage

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Basanti Soap Industry

Kisan Metharam Balani versus Icici Bank Limited

Mr Ashwani Kumar versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)

Canara Bank versus Sri Pankaj Sahani

Milind S/O Keshaorao Pande versus Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. through Its Authorized Officer