Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Smt. Saroj Garg

DRT13 Jul 2023OA/1220/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of Rs. 1.95 crores as defendants failed to repay the term loan secured by a mortgaged property, and reduced the future interest rate to 7% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.1,95,51,889/- with future simple interest at 7% p.a. w.e.f. 11.07.2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to sell mortgaged property.

Icici Bank Limited versus Smt. Saroj Garg — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1220/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th DAY OF JULY, 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 and having its Registered Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007 and its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai400051 and having Branches all over India and one of its Branches situated at I^st Floor, Near N.K. Sharma Office, Chandigarh-Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Authorised Signatory, Sh. Ashwini Verma

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Saroj Garg W/o Sh. Shyam Garg R/o House No. E-1/116, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121006

¶9

2^nd Address : Plot No.110, Block-B1, DLF, Model Town, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121001

¶10

Sh. Shyam Garg S/o Sh. Prem Chand R/o House No.E-1/116, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121006

¶11

2^nd Address : C/o M/s Garg & Company, E-1, 70, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121006

¶12

3^rd Address : Plot No.110, Block-B1, DLF, Model Town, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121001

¶13

Sh. Saurabh Garg S/o Sh. Shyam Garg R/o House No. E-1/116, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121006

¶14

OA/1220/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SMT. SAROJ GARG AND OTHERS 2

¶15

2^nd Address :

¶16

Plot No. 110, Block-B1, DLF, Model Town, Sector-11, Faridabad,

¶17

Haryana-121001

¶18

…..Defendants

¶19

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 10.02.2023

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

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.1,95,51,889/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Ashwini Verma, Authorized Signatory of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 24.04.2009, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶22

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. 175 lacs vide loan application dated 20.04.2017, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶23

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide offer letter dated 20.04.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶24

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed facility agreement dated 20.04.2017, AnnexureA3 (copy).

¶25

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage in respect of residential plot No. 110 measuring 500 Square

¶26

OA/1220/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SMT. SAROJ GARG AND OTHERS 3

¶27

Yards situated in Block B-I, Sector 11, DLF Model Town, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana fully detailed in para No. 3(A) of the Original Application. Registered sale deed dated 03.05.2017, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶28

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 NPA on 31.08.2020 vide NPA certificate dated 15.11.2021, Annexure-A7 (copy). The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide recall notice dated 24.12.2018 along with dispatch details, AnnexureA6 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶29

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.1,95,51,889/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶30

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

¶31

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 10.02.2023 .

¶32

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ashwini Verma, Authorised Signatory of the applicant bank was filed.

¶33

OA/1220/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SMT. SAROJ GARG AND OTHERS 4

¶34

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.

¶35

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 A8 , 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.1,95,51,889/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety

¶36

Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine

¶37

Only) from the defendants.

¶38

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @24% per annum with monthly rests. In offer letter dated 20.04.2017, Annexure-A4 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @8.50% per annum.

¶39

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, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. housing, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest

¶40

OA/1220/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SMT. SAROJ GARG AND OTHERS 5

¶41

which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 1 being a female 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.

¶42

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.1,95,51,889/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 11.07.2022 , 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 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.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 13.09.2023 .

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

OA/1220/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SMT. SAROJ GARG AND OTHERS

¶48

Icici Bank Limited v. Smt. Saroj Garg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Smt. Saroj Garg

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

Bishnu Priya Panda versus Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s Mahfuz Construction and Others

Hdfc Bank versus M/s Jaiswal Enterprises and Others

Shafi Adattil versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Maa Vindhyavashini Industries and others

Uco Bank versus M/s V1 Veriety Mall and Others