Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pawan Kumar

DRT16 Aug 2023OA/1124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 33,84,124/- principal and granted uniform simple interest at 9% p.a. The bank was entitled to recover dues via property sale or asset attachment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,84,124/- with interest @9% p.a. from date of filing; liberty to recover from sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1124/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.06.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 16^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited , having its Registered Office near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007, inter alia having a Branch at Huda Complex, Rohtak, through its Attorney/Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager

¶6

….Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Ashok, sole proprietor of Pawan Kumar Contractor R/o 1128, Pana-Melwan, Bohar, Part 68, Bohara, District Rohtak-124001

¶9

Sh. Pardeep s/o Sh. Vedpal R/o Panaarhar (21), District Jhajjar124501

¶10

…..Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 16.03.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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 defendants for recovery of Rs.33,84,124/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Four Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent

¶14

OA/1124/2022 ICICI BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

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 defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for grant of vehicle loan of Rs. 30,60,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application form dated 17.05.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide credit facility application Form dated 30.05.2019, 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. unattested deed of hypothecation dated 30.05.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy), irrevocable power of attorney dated 30.05.2019, Annexure-A5 (copy) and registration details of vehicle, Annexure-A7 (copy). Defendant No. 2 executed deed of guarantee dated 30.05.2019, 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 became irregular and it was declared as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 20.02.2021, Annexure-A10 (copy) and dispatch details, AnnexureA11 , 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.33,84,124/(Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred

¶21

OA/1124/2022 ICICI BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER 3

¶22

and Twenty Four Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per foreclosure statement, Annexure-A8 (copy) and statement of account duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A9 (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.03.2023 .

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

It was argued by Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank 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 A11 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that the 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.33,84,124/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs

¶28

OA/1124/2022 ICICI BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER 4

¶29

Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Four Only) from the defendants.

¶30

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In credit facility application Form dated 30.05.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.87% 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 commercial vehicle, 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 order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

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.33,84,124/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Four Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 18.06.2022 , 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 defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

¶33

OA/1124/2022 ICICI BANK Vs PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.10.2023 .

¶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. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pawan 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Langei International

Uco Bank versus Smt Anju Rani Ghosh

Jagranath Chaudhary and Another versus Punjab National Bank

Paramjeet Singh versus Idbi Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Satish Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Dilip Kumar Singh & Anr.