Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by ICICI Bank Limited against Rajinder Kumar Bareja for recovery of Rs. 29,48,020/- along with uniform simple interest.
Recovery Certificate issued directing payment of Rs. 29,48,020/- with 9% simple interest; liberty to recover via sale of hypothecated vehicle.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1781/2022
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.09.2022
DATE OF DECISION: 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
ICICI Bank Limited , having its Registered Office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007, Gujarat and inter alia having a Branch at Chandigarh, through its Attorney/Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager
…..Applicant
Versus
Sh. Rajinder Kumar Bareja s/o Sh. Shiv Dayal Bareja r/o Flat No. A- 404, 4th Floor, Wellington Estate, Himmatgarh, Dhakauli, S.A.A. Nagar
…..Defendant
Argued by: Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 18.08.2023
FINAL ORDER
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.29,48,020/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Forty Eight Thousand and Twenty Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).
OA/1781/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs RAJINDER KUMAR BAREJA 2
It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.29,48,020/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Forty Eight Thousand and Twenty Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statements and foreclosure statements of the accounts,
OA/1781/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs RAJINDER KUMAR BAREJA 3
certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures-A8, A9, A10 and A11 (copy).
Since the defendant did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.
OA/1781/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs RAJINDER KUMAR BAREJA 4
Nine Lac Forty Eight Thousand and Twenty Only) from the defendant.
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 and business, 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 @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.
OA/1781/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs RAJINDER KUMAR BAREJA
5
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.
Pronounced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defendant is liable to repay the outstanding loan amount to the applicant bank.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ICICI Bank Limited
M.M. Dhonchak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
