Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagdeep

DRT5 Sept 2023OA/1579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs.20,01,552/- against defaulting borrowers. The court extinguished claimed future interest, granting a uniform simple interest of 8% per annum instead, and ordered issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.20,01,552/- with uniform simple interest @8% per annum from 30.08.2022.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1579/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.08.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 5^th DAY OF SEPTEMEBER, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodra-390007, having its Branch at SCO 237-238, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Parveen Kumar

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Jagdeep s/o Sh. Raghbir r/o Village Simla, Kaithal, Haryana136117

¶9

Sh. Raghbir s/o Sh. Baru r/o Village Simla, Kaithal, Haryana136117

¶10

…..Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 27.04.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant

¶14

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.20,01,552/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Parveen Kumar, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank

¶15

OA/1579 of 2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. JAGDEEP AND ANOTHER 2 stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

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 KCC facility of Rs. 16,49,000/- vide credit facility application form dated 09.09.2020, Annexure-A2 (copy). 3. The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶17

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed hypothecation deed, Annexure-A3 (copy). 5. The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendants in respect of agricultural land measuring 57 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Shimla, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application. Declaration dated 05.11.2020 under Section 4(1) of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, is Annexure-A4 (copy). Letter dated 05.11.2020 by UCO Bank regarding release of land in favour of defendant No.2 is Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶18

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 classified as NPA. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide notices dated 10.06.2022, Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy) and dispatch details, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶19

OA/1579 of 2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. JAGDEEP AND ANOTHER 3

¶20

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.20,01,552/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1891, Annexure-A8 (copy).

¶21

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

¶22

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 27.04.2023 .

¶23

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence Sh. Parveen Kumar, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed. 9. This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶24

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

¶25

OA/1579 of 2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. JAGDEEP AND ANOTHER 4

¶26

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.20,01,552/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) from the defendants.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @12% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In hypothecation deed, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @12.35% per annum.

¶28

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 and 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.

¶29

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.20,01,552/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 30.08.2022 , till the date of

¶30

OA/1579 of 2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. JAGDEEP AND ANOTHER

¶31

5 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. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 10.10.2023 .

¶34

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.

¶35

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagdeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Jagdeep

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

Abdul Nazar @ Chinnappa versus Hdfc Bank

Woodmall Furniture versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Sree Guru Sales and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr Sathish S versus Uco Bank

Nisha Nitin Koppikar versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Bank of India versus Palli Yashwanth