Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma

DRT14 Dec 2023OA/1221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 2 crore as per a housing loan agreement. The court ex-parte proceeded due to defendant absence, modified interest claims to 8% simple annum, and ordered issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 2,00,12,228.80 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from 11.07.2022.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1221/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 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 ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-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 First Floor, Near N.K. Sharma Office, Chandigarh-Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Authorised Signatory, Sh. Ashwini Verma

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma r/o Omaxe Grand, Flat No. 702, Tower Greenwich B, Sector-93 B, Opposite Panchsheel Balak College, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 IInd Address:

¶9

C/o The Circus Entertainment Private Limited, A-47, Second Floor, DDA Sheds, Okhla, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020

¶10

Sh. Vicky Philip Thomas s/o Sh. Thomas Philipose r/o House No. 360, Ground Floor, Prakash Mohalla, East of Kailash, New Delhi110065

¶11

IInd Address:

¶12

C/o The Circus Entertainment Private Limited, A-47, Second

¶13

OA/1221/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS 2

¶14

Floor, DDA Sheds, Okhla, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020

¶15

The Circus Entertainment Pvt. Limited, through its Directors, A- 47, Second Floor, DDA Sheds, Okhla, Phase-II, New Delhi110020

¶16

…..Defendants

¶17

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Garg counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 10.08.2023

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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 defendants for recovery of Rs.2,00,12,228.80/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight and Eighty Paisa Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Ashwini Verma, Authorised 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).

¶20

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant

¶21

bank for grant of housing loan facility of Rs. 300 lac vide application Form, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶22

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facility of Rs. 2,12,99,181/- to the defendants vide letter dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶23

OA/1221/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS 3

¶24

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed facility agreement dated 16.09.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶25

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of residential plot No. 224 measuring 300 Square Meter situated at Palam Vihar, Block G, in and around the revenue estates of Chauma and Carterpuri, Tehsil and District, Gurugram, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application. Registered sale deed dated 20.09.2019 is Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶26

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 on 06.10.2020 vide NPA certificate dated 15.11.2021, Annexure-A6 (copy). The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide recall notice dated 11.05.2022 along with its dispatch details, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.2,00,12,228.80/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve Thousand

¶28

Two Hundred Twenty Eight and Eighty Paisa Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶29

OA/1221/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS 4

¶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, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.08.2023 .

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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 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.2,00,12,228.80/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight and Eighty Paisa Only) from the defendants.

¶35

OA/1221/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS 5

¶36

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests. In letter dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.15% per annum.

¶37

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 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 @8% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.2,00,12,228.80/- (Rupees Two Crore Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight and Eighty Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 11.07.2022 , 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

¶39

OA/1221/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS 6

¶40

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.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.02.2024 .

¶43

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

¶44

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma

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

Rajesh Venugopal versus South Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Mamun Hussain Chowdhury

Sri Bikram Yadav versus Nedfi

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Nitesh @ Nitesh Krishan Nand

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Karanam Ajay Kumar

Union Bank of India versus Core Fuel Enterprises