Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/2162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application for recovery of a housing loan. It directed the defendants to pay the principal amount with interest at 7% per annum and ordered the delivery of title deeds by the third defendant to prevent alienation of the mortgaged property before execution.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs.96,37,975.82 with interest at 7% p.a.; order directing third defendant to hand over title deeds; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to attach/sell other asset

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 2162/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.11.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 13^th 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, Mumbai400051 and Branches all over India and one of its Branches at First Floor, Near N.K. Sharma office, Chandigarh-Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab, through its Authorised Signatory, Mohammad Vajid

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh s/o Sh. Amrendra Prasad Singh r/o Flat No. A-302, Hari Krishan Apartments, GH-1, Sector-45, Faridabad Haryana-121003

¶9

Second Address: c/o ICICI Securities Limited, FA-16, First Floor, Crown Plaza Mall, Sector-15, Faridabad, Haryana-121008

¶10

Third Address: Flat No. 1101, 11^th Floor, Tower2/Tower Alcazar, The Presidio, Village Atmapur, Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana121002

¶11

Smt. Kajal Singh w/o Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh r/o Flat No. A-302, Hari Krishan Apartments, GH-1, Sector-45, Faridabad Haryana121003

¶12

OA/2162/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶13

Second Address: Flat No. 1101, 11^th Floor, Tower2/Tower Alcazar, The Presidio, Village Atmapur, Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana-121002

¶14

Ozone GSP Infratech, having its registered office at Sarome House, Sector-45, Faridabad, Haryana-121003

¶15

…..Defendants

¶16

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Garg counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 11.09.2023

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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 defendants for recovery of Rs.96,37,975.82/- (Rupees Ninety Six Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five and Eighty Two Paisa 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).

¶19

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Housing Loan facility of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- vide application Form, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶20

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vide sanction letter dated 27.10.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶21

OA/2162/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶22

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed facility agreement dated 29.10.2016, Annexure-A4 (copy) and tripartite agreement dated 22.10.2016, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶23

The aforesaid loan was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No. 1 in respect of residential Flat No. 1101, measuring 2088 Square Feet situated at Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana, fully detailed in para No.5(v) of the Original Application.

¶24

The documents relating to the mortgage are as under:

¶25

i. Flat buyer agreement dated 17.10.2016, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶26

ii. Letter regarding permission to mortgage of flat, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 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 on 31.08.2020. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide demand notice dated 25.03.2021 along with postal receipts, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶28

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.96,37,975.82/- (Rupees Ninety Six Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five and Eighty Two Paisa

¶29

Only), is recoverable against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as per

¶30

OA/2162/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶31

statement of account, Annexure-A10 (copy) and NPA certificate dated 21.07.2022, Annexure-A9 (copy), duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891.

¶32

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 ex parte vide order dated 11.09.2023 .

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A10 , it is clear that defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. It is further clear that defendants had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. It is also clear that tripartite agreement, Annexure-A6 (copy) was executed between the parties. 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

¶36

OA/2162/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶37

Rs.96,37,975.82/- (Rupees Ninety Six Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five and Eighty Two Paisa

¶38

Only) from defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶39

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @24% per annum. In sanction letter dated 27.10.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.25% per annum.

¶40

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 female, while exercising the discretion vested in 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.

¶41

Learned counsel argued that title deed of the secured asset (Flat) might be ordered to be handed over to the applicant bank by defendant No.3 because with the same being handed over to defendant Nos.1 and 2 by defendant No.3, they (defendant Nos.1 and 2) would be able to alienate the same and the alienation of the same would create hindrance in the way of execution of the Recovery Certificate issued by this Tribunal. The above

¶42

OA/2162/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 6

¶43

apprehension of the learned counsel, cannot be said to be without any foundation and substance. Therefore, it would be in the interests of justice if this Tribunal directs defendant No.3 to hand over the title deed of the property in question to the applicant bank.

¶44

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.96,37,975.82/- (Rupees Ninety

¶45

Six Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five

¶46

and Eighty Two Paisa Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 28.11.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. The liability of the above 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 defendant Nos. 1 and 2 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 defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, the applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶47

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶48

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 05.02.2024 .

¶49

OA/2162/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 7

¶50

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.

¶51

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pankaj Kumar 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

State Bank of India versus Tagmaxx

Sanjay Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kumar Tiles and Sanitary Wares

Hdfc Bank versus Shri Rajiv Kumar Singla

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank versus Sh. Baldev Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Surander Tanwar