Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Virender Singh

DRT14 Jul 2023OA/2279/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank against Sh. Virender Singh for recovery of a vehicle loan default. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance, ordered payment of the principal amount with 9% simple interest, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The applicant bank is to recover Rs. 21,78,552/- with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing; recovery certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Virender Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2279/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.12.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 14^th DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodra-390007, having its Branch at Basement, near Rajan Sarees, Aggarsain chowk, Ambala City-134003, Haryana, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Mohamad Vajid

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Bir Singh R/o Village Rattangarh, 487, Near Jhera Mandir, District Yamunanagar-135133

¶9

…..Defendant

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank Defendant ex parte vide order dated 18.02.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant 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 defendant for recovery of Rs.21,78,552/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original

¶13

¶14

OA/2279/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. VIRENDER SINGH

¶15

Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

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. 26,95,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application form dated 21.01.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid facility to the defendant vide credit facility application form dated 21.01.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendant executed unattested deed of hypothecation dated 21.01.2019, Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶19

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 and resultantly, the loan account became irregular it was declared as NPA. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide recall notices dated 19.07.2021, along with dispatch details, Annexures-A6 to A8 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶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.21,78,552/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) is recoverable against the defendant as per statement of account, certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶21

OA/2279/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. VIRENDER SINGH 3

¶22

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

¶23

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 18.02.2023 .

¶24

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

¶25

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Manager for the applicant bank and gone through the record carefully.

¶26

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 defendant for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A8 , 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.21,78,552/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) from the defendant.

¶27

OA/2279/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. VIRENDER SINGH

¶28

4 10. In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed rate of interest @9.15% per annum. In credit facility application form dated 21.01.2019, Annexure-A3 (copy), rate of interest has been mentioned @9.15% per annum.

¶29

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 a 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.

¶30

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.21,78,552/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 13.12.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendant 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

¶31

¶32

OA/2279/2022 ICICI BANK Vs SH. VIRENDER SINGH

¶33

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. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 14.09.2023 .

¶36

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.

¶37

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Virender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Virender 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

Shafi Adattil versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Maa Vindhyavashini Industries and others

Uco Bank versus M/s V1 Veriety Mall and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S R R Enterprises and Others

Ashoutosh Prabhakar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Mohan Kumar Rai and Ors.