Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Baljit Singh

DRT24 May 2023OA/1096/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery application against sole proprietor and spouse holding joint and several liability for Rs. 31.77 lakhs, fixing interest at 8% per annum from filing date to realization.

What did the court decide?

Direct recovery of Rs. 31,77,047 plus simple interest @ 8% p.a. from 18.06.2022 till realization with liberty to enforce against hypothecated or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Baljit Singh — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1096/2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.06.2022

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 24^th DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited , having its registered office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007, inter-alia having a Branch at Huda Complex, Rohtak, through its Attorney/Authorized representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager

¶5

....Applicant Bank

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Baljit Singh S/o Sh. Shree Bhagwan, Sole Proprietor of M/s Mudgal Automobile, 108, New Kasar Road, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana-124507

¶8

Smt. Babita W/o Sh. Baljit Singh R/o Village Kasar (43), Jhajjar, Haryana-124103

¶9

…...Defendants

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Sumeet Sehgal proxy counsel for Sh. J.S. Sehgal counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 10.04.2023

¶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 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) against the defendants for recovery of Rs.31,77,047/(Rupees Thirty One lacs Seventy Seven Thousand and Forty Seven Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank stated to be

¶13

OA/1096/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶14

¶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 defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs. 30,20,490/- vide preliminary credit facility application dated 16.09.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforementioned credit facility to the defendants vide credit facility application dated 16.09.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loans and security documents, i.e. deed of hypothecation dated 16.09.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy), irrevocable power of attorney dated 16.09.2019, Annexure-A5 (copy) and vehicle registration details dated 20.04.2022, Annexure-A6 (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 was declared as NPA because it became irregular. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide recall notice dated 20.02.2021, Annexure-A9 (copy) and details of postal receipt, Annexure-A10 (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.31,77,047/(Rupees Thirty One lacs Seventy Seven Thousand and Forty Seven Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account and foreclosure letter dated 09.11.2021, Annexures-A7 and

¶21

OA/1096/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

¶23

A8 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶24

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.04.2023 .

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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 defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A10 , it is clear that defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that defendants 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.31,77,047/(Rupees Thirty One lacs Seventy Seven Thousand and Forty Seven Only) from the defendants.

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In preliminary credit facility application dated 16.09.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.77% per annum.

¶29

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in

¶30

OA/1096/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶31

¶32

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 commercial vehicle, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 2 being a lady, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.31,77,047/(Rupees Thirty One lacs Seventy Seven Thousand and Forty Seven Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 18.06.2022, 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 property 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, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 27.07.2023.

¶36

OA/1096/2022 ICICI BANK Vs BALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Baljit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Baljit Singh

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Rajveer Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Meena Begum

Uco Bank versus M/S Nagar Foot Art Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Bontha Yadaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sri Manjuntha Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus Swathi Muthyala