Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

DRT21 Dec 2023OA/150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited recovered Rs.33,94,984/- owed by Kuldeep Singh. The Tribunal adjusted the claimed interest rate from 24% to 9% p.a. ex-mero motu and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.33,94,984/- with simple interest at 9% per annum; Recovery Certificate issued; Liberty to recover from sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 150/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.01.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 21^st 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 S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, through its Authorised Signatory, Sh. Mohammad Vajid

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Chabil Dass r/o Balsmand, (22), Near Jhangra Dharamshala, Hisar, Haryana-125001

¶9

....Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Manav Singal proxy counsel for Sh. D.K. Singal counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 19.09.2023

¶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), against the defendant for recovery of Rs.33,94,984/-

¶13

OA/150/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS KULDEEP SINGH 2

¶14

(Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred

¶15

and Eighty Four only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Authorised Signatory of the applicant bank stated to be competent 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 the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility vide preliminary credit facility application form, Annexure A-2 (copy) and again approached for ECLGS facility of Rs.4,81,659/- vide preliminary credit facility application form dated 17.08.2020, Annexure A-6 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned term loan facility of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant vide credit facility application form-cum-sanction letter, Annexure A-3 and thereafter, sanctioned ECLGS facility of Rs.4,80,000/- vide sanction letter dated 21.08.2020, Annexure A-7 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendant executed various loan and security documents, i.e. deeds of hypothecation dated 14.11.2019 and 21.08.2020, Annexures A- 4 and A-8 (copy). Registration details of vehicle, Annexure A-5 (copy)

¶19

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendant but he failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular and those were declared as NPA.

¶20

OA/150/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS KULDEEP SINGH 3

¶21

The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 16.06.2021, Annexure A-9 (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.33,94,984/(Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Four only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures A-10 and A-11 (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since, none appeared on behalf of the defendant, the same was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated

¶25

19.09.2023 .

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

It was argued by the learned proxy 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 A-1 to A-11 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of

¶29

OA/150/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS KULDEEP SINGH 4

¶30

the loan facilities which were 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 the applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.33,94,984/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Four only) from the defendant.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed interest @24% per annum with monthly rests. In credit facility application forms-cumsanction letter dated 14.11.2019, the rate of interest has been mentioned @9.25% per annum in respect of ECLGS facility with monthly rests.

¶32

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 (Toyota Fortuner), 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

OA/150/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS KULDEEP SINGH 5

¶34

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.33,94,984/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Four only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 21.01.2022 , 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.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 13.02.2024.

¶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. Kuldeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Kuldeep 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

Canara Bank versus M/s Li- Style

Canara Bank versus Messers Yuvaraj Trading

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shriram Trading

Tilak Raj Pathak versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajender Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Santhosh Enterprises