Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Kehar Singh

DRT18 Dec 2023OA/1563/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 21,13,788/- from three respondents who defaulted on a KCC facility loan secured by land mortgage and hypothecation, granting a recovery certificate with 8% p.a. interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 21,13,788/- with 8% per annum simple interest from 25.08.2022 payable jointly and severally.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Kehar Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1563/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.08.2022

¶4

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

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, having its registered office at Landmark Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007, having its Branch at S.C.O. Nos. 237238, Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana), through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Parveen Kumar

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Kehar Singh s/o Sh. Asha Ram r/o Sakra, Dhand, Kaithal, Haryana-136021

¶9

Sh. Rajiv Taya s/o Sh. Kehar Singh r/o Sakra, Dhand, Kaithal, Haryana-136021

¶10

Sh. Lajja Ram s/o Sh. Juna Ram r/o Village Jautpula, Tehsil and District Ambala, Haryana-134003

¶11

....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Kavish proxy counsel for Sh. Puneet Tuli Advocate for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 18.09.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.21,13,788/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) . It has been filed through

¶15

OA/1563/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶16

Sh. Parveen Kumar, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

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 credit facility of Rs. 21,88,600/- under KCC Scheme vide credit facility application Form dated 11.03.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facility to the defendants vide sanction letter dated 21.03.2016, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶19

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed hypothecation deed and guarantee deed dated 22.03.2016 is Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy).

¶20

The aforesaid limit was further secured by creation of registered mortgage by defendant No.1 in respect of agricultural land measuring 48 Kanal situated in the revenue estate of Sakre, Hadbast No. 18. Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the OA. Indenture of mortgaged deed dated 21.03.2016 is Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶21

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. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide demand notices dated

¶22

OA/1563/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶23

10.06.2022, Annexure-A5 (colly) (copy) and postal receipts, Annexure-A6 (copy), but to no avail.

¶24

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.21,13,788/(Rupees Twenty One Lac Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶25

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

¶26

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 18.09.2023 .

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel for 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 A7 , 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

¶30

OA/1563/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶31

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.21,13,788/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) from the defendants.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @12% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letter dated 21.03.2016, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @9.35% per annum.

¶33

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 mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural , present conditions of economy based on agriculture, 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.

¶34

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.21,13,788/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Thirteen

¶35

OA/1563/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶36

Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 25.08.2022 , 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 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.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 09.02.2024.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Kehar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Kehar 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

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