Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Mam Cand

DRT23 Jun 2023OA/1537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery application by the bank against borrowers failing to repay a home loan. It directed recovery of the principal amount plus simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing, permitting sale of mortgaged personal assets if dues remain unsatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.27,60,838/- with 7% simple interest from 20.08.2022; liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Mam Cand — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1537/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.08.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 23^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited , having its Registered Office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 having its Branch at S.C.O 237-238, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohamad Vajid

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Mam Chand R/o Village Dhanaura, PO Bakali, New Grain Market, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana-135136

¶9

Smt. Sushila R/o Village Dhanaura, PO Bakali, New Grain Market, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana-135136

¶10

Kuber Trading Company through its Partner, Sh. Mam Chand R/o Village Dhanaura, PO Bakali, New Grain Market, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana-135136

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Authorised Signatory for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 24.01.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶15

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

¶16

OA/1537/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MAM CHAND AND OTHERS 2

¶17

Rs.27,60,838/- (Rupees Twenty Seven lacs Sixty Thousand

¶18

Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Authorised Representative 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 Original Application are that the defendants approached the applicant bank for grant of top up home loan facility of Rs. 25.00 lacs .

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants vide offer letter dated 30.01.2018, Annexure-A4 (copy). as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. facility agreement dated 29.01.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy) and partnership deed dated 01.04.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶22

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by the defendants in respect of House No. 241, Deepak Colony, Radaur, Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001, detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application.

¶23

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 was declared as NPA because it became irregular. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide recall notice dated 26.05.2022, Annexure-A5 (copy), but to no avail.

¶24

OA/1537/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MAM CHAND AND OTHERS 3

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.27,60,838/- (Rupees Twenty Seven lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account dated 03.03.2022, Annexure-A6 (copy) certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.

¶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 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 24.01.2023 .

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

It was argued by Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager Legal, Authorised representative 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 A6 , 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

¶31

OA/1537/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MAM CHAND AND OTHERS 4

¶32

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.27,60,838/- (Rupees Twenty

¶33

Seven lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) from the defendants.

¶34

In so far as pendent lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @8.45% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In facility agreement dated 29.01.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.40% per annum.

¶35

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 and defendant No. 2 being a lady, 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.

¶36

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant bank

¶37

OA/1537/2022 ICICI BANK Vs MAM CHAND AND OTHERS 5

¶38

a sum of Rs.27,60,838/- (Rupees Twenty Seven lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 20.08.2022 , 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.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 23.08.2023 .

¶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

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Mam Cand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Mam Cand

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

State Bank of India versus Mr Pura Bareh

Anand Paswan versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Gurunanak Electronics and others

Mustaf Mohiuddin Jeelano Alias M M Jeelani versus South Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Amandeep Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Ahmed Rinku