Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagdev Rana

DRT18 Dec 2023OA/1138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by ICICI Bank against Jagdev Rana for recovery of Rs.35,35,909/- in respect of a vehicle loan. The court granted uniform simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate for Rs.35,35,909/- plus interest at 9% per annum from 01.07.2022. Liberty to recover from hypothecated vehicle or attach personal assets if dues remain unsatisfied.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Jagdev Rana — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1138/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 18^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited , having its registered office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007, Gujarat-390007, inter-alia having a Branch at Panchkula, through its Attorney/Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Jagdev Rana s/o Sh. Harbans Singh r/o House No. 858, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana-134109

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. J.S. Sehgal counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 25.09.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), a gainst the defendant for recovery of Rs.35,35,909/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine 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).

¶13

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 vehicle loan facility of Rs. 43.75 lac vide preliminary

¶14

OA/1138/2022 ICICI BANK VS JAGDEV RANA 2

¶15

credit facility application Form dated 14.01.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶16

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide credit facility application Form dated 14.01.2020, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶17

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed unattested deed of hypothecation dated 14.01.2020, Annexure-A4 (copy). Registration details of vehicle is Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶18

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 leading to the loan account becoming irregular and it being classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 19.05.2021, Annexure-A8 (copy) and its dispatch details, AnnexureA9 (copy), but to no avail.

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.35,35,909/-

¶20

(Rupees Thirty Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and

¶21

Nine Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per foreclosure letter dated 14.03.2020, Annexure-A6 (copy) and statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A7 (colly) (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

OA/1138/2022 ICICI BANK VS JAGDEV RANA 3

¶24

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 25.09.2023 .

¶25

In support of 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 counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶27

It was argued by the learned counsel 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

¶28

Rs.35,35,909/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine Only) from the defendant.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In statement of account, Annexure-A7 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @10.26% per annum.

¶30

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the

¶31

OA/1138/2022 ICICI BANK VS JAGDEV RANA 4

¶32

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 (BMW) , 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.

¶33

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.35,35,909/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lac Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine Only) with current and future simple interest @9% 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 hypothecated vehicle 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. 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. However, 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 09.02.2024.

¶36

OA/1138/2022 ICICI BANK VS JAGDEV RANA 5

¶37

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

¶38

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagdev Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagdev Rana

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 Sonam Industries

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Geeta Stationary

Hdfc Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr. Ghanshyam Nayak

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Urmila Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Suresh Traders