Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pardeep Kumar

DRT18 Dec 2023OA/2246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.21,23,229 against a vehicle loan defaulter. The court modified the interest rate to 9% per annum from the filing date and authorized recovery via execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,23,229 with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing; liberty to recover via sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2246/2022 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.12.2022

¶3

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

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited , having its Registered Office at Near Chakli, Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007, Gujarat, inter alia having a Branch at Panipat, through its Attorney/Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager

¶5

…..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan, sole Proprietor of Dev Dahiya Stock Building Material Supplier r/o House No. 1, Street No. 2, Saboli Road, Sanjay Colony, Mamoorpur, North West Delhi-110040

¶8

…..Defendant

¶9

Argued by: Sh. J.S. Sehgal counsel for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 22.09.2023

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

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.21,23,229/(Rupees Twenty One Lac Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager of the applicant bank stated to be

¶12

OA/2246/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PARDEEP KUMAR 2

¶13

competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶14

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for grant of vehicle loan of Rs. 23,28,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application form dated 25.04.2019, Annexure-A2 . 3. The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide credit facility application form dated 25.04.2019, Annexure- A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶15

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed unattested deed of hypothecation dated 25.04.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy) and irrevocable power of attorney dated 25.04.2019, Annexure-A5 (copy). Details of vehicle are mentioned in Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶16

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendant but he 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 loan recall notice dated 05.03.2021, Annexure-A9 (copy) and postal receipts, Annexure-A10 (colly) (copy), but to no avail

¶17

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.21,23,229/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Only), is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, Annexure-A7

¶18

OA/2246/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PARDEEP KUMAR 3

¶19

(copy) and foreclosure statement of the loan Annexure-A8 (copy) certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891.

¶20

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

¶21

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendant, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.09.2023 .

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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 the defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A10 , it is clear that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. It is further clear that the defendant had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the defendant 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.21,23,229/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac

¶25

OA/2246/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PARDEEP KUMAR 4

¶26

Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) from the defendant.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, in relief clause, the applicant bank has not claimed any particular rate of interest. In preliminary credit facility application form dated 25.04.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @16% 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, purpose of loan, i.e. purchase of vehicle, 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.

¶29

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs holding that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.21,23,229/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 08.12.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicle of the defendant in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and

¶30

OA/2246/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs PARDEEP KUMAR 5

¶31

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.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 09.02.2024 .

¶34

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendant through registered/speed post. This order be uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶35

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pardeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Pardeep Kumar

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