Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Sombir Singh

DRT20 Sept 2023OA/1136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd for a recovery certificate against two respondents for an outstanding vehicle loan amount of Rs. 20,69,506/-, granting uniform simple interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 20,69,506/- with simple interest at 8% per annum from 01.07.2022, recoverable via hypothecated property or attachment of personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sombir Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1136/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 20^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited , a body corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its registered Office at Near Chakli Circle,

¶6

Old Padra Road, Vadodra-390007 and its corporate office at ICICI bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051, having Branches all over India and one of its Branches situated at Hisar, through its attorney/authorised representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager

¶7

…..Applicant Bank

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sombir Singh s/o Sh. Badlu Ram r/o Village Dhani-Mahu, District Bhiwani-127040

¶10

Smt. Munni Devi w/o Sh. Badlu Ram r/o Village Dhani-Mahu, District Bhiwani-127040

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 13.04.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

OA/1136/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. SOMBIR SINGH 2

¶16

as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of

¶17

Rs.20,69,506/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Sixty Nine Thousand Five

¶18

Hundred Six Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶19

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of vehicle loan of Rs. 15,71,605/- vide preliminary credit facility application form dated 15.03.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide credit facility application form dated 15.03.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶21

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed unattested deed of hypothecation dated 15.03.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy) and irrevocable power of attorney dated 15.03.2019, Annexure-A5 (copy). Registration detail of vehicle is Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶22

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 leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 10.07.2019, Annexure-A9 (copy) and dispatch details, Annexures-A10 and A11 (copy), but to no avail.

¶23

OA/1136/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. SOMBIR SINGH 3

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.20,69,506/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Sixty Nine Thousand Five

¶25

Hundred Six Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A7 (copy) and foreclosure statement, AnnexureA8 (copy).

¶26

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

¶27

Notices of the Original Application was 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 13.04.2023 .

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

OA/1136/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. SOMBIR SINGH

¶32

4 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.20,69,506/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Six Only) from the defendants.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has not claimed any rate of interest. In credit facility application form dated 15.03.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @10.92% per annum.

¶34

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 and defendant No.2 being a female, 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.

¶35

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.20,69,506/- (Rupees Twenty Lac Sixty Nine

¶36

OA/1136/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. SOMBIR SINGH

¶37

¶38

Thousand Five Hundred Six Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2022 , 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 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 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. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 23.10.2023 .

¶41

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.

¶42

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Sombir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Sombir 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Pung Enterprise

Canara Bank versus Sri Pranjal Boruah

Indian Bank versus M/s S. Footware and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Lalita Saini

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ram Singh

Union Bank of India versus Maya Saha and Anr.