Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Sun Rise International Group

DRT18 Dec 2023OA/2252/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-2, Chandigarh allowed Original Application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of dues from borrowers who failed to repay a vehicle loan. The court determined the original claim amount and modified the future interest rate to 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.36,38,604/- with future simple interest at 8% per annum w.e.f. 13.12.2022. Issue of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Sun Rise International Group — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2252/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.12.2022

¶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 ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No. 143, A City Emporium Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Sun Rise International Group, through its Partners, Mrs. Praveen and Sh. Satbir Singh r/o House No. 147, Balasmand Road, Professor Colony, Hisar-125001

¶9

Also At: 17/22, Jat College Road, Near Railway Station, Gate-2, Hisar-125001

¶10

Mrs. Praveen r/o House No. 68, Gangwa Road, Arya Nagar (57), Hisar-125001

¶11

Sh. Satbir Singh s/o Sh. Shish Pal Singh r/o Arya Nagar (57), Hisar-125001

¶12

…..Defendants

¶13

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Advocate for the applicant bank (through VC) Defendants ex parte vide order dated 03.10.2023

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks

¶16

OA/2252/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs SUN RICE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS 2 and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.36,38,604/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Four Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶17

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 vehicle loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application Forms, Annexures-A2, A3, A4 and A5 (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount.

¶18

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendants credit facility Form dated 28.08.2018, Annexure-A6 (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 unattested deed of hypothecation dated 22.08.2018, Annexure-A7 (copy), irrecoverable power of attorney dated 22.08.2018, Annexure-A8 (copy), partnership authority letter and confirmation, Annexure-A9 (copy) and amended deed of partnership dated 13.11.2017, Annexure-A10 (copy).

¶20

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.

¶21

OA/2252/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs SUN RICE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS 3

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.36,38,604/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Four Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of accounts, certified under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A11 (copy).

¶23

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

¶24

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 03.10.2023 .

¶25

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed. 8. This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned proxy counsel for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

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 A11 , 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

¶27

OA/2252/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs SUN RICE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS 4 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.36,38,604/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Four Only) from the defendants. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, in relief clause, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @9.76% per annum. In credit facility Form dated 28.08.2018, Annexure-A6 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.76% 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 (Endavour) , 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, 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.36,38,604/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Four Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 13.12.2022 , till the date

¶30

OA/2252/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs SUN RICE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS 5

¶31

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 hypothecated vehicle 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 08.02.2024 .

¶34

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.

¶35

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

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Sun Rise International Group

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Sun Rise International Group

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