Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Abs Stone Mines

DRT26 Dec 2023OA/609/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19(1) RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The Tribunal confirmed the defendants' liability for the principal amount and modified the interest claim from 24% to 10% per annum exercisable from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; defendants ordered to pay Rs. 29,04,578 with 10% simple interest from 28.03.2022 till realization.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Abs Stone Mines — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 609/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 26^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, Mumbai-400051, having Branches all over India and one of its Branches situated at 1^st Floor, Near N. K. Sharma Office, ChandigarhAmbala National Highway, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, through its Authorised Signatory, Mohammad Vajid

¶6

…….....Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. M/s ABS Stone Mines through its Partners, Village and Post Office Dhanaura, Opposite Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 (PAN No. ABNFA9059P)

¶9

2. Sh. Sunil s/o Sh. Krishan r/o House No. 591/6, Gali No.3, Adarsh Nagar, Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana-131301

¶10

3. Sh. Manoj Kumar Raniwal s/o Sh. Ram Karan Raniwal, Flat No.231, Pitampura, New Delhi-110100

¶11

2^nd Address

¶12

House No.47, Pocket H-34, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110095.

¶13

OA/2120/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. V. M/S ABS STONE MINES AND OTHERS

¶14

¶15

………… Defendants

¶16

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Garg proxy counsel for Sh. D.K. Singal counsel for the applicant bank Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 ex parte vide order dated 06.08.2022

¶17

Defendant No. 3 ex parte vide order dated 27.06.2023

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.29,04,578/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Eight 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, Annexure A-1 (copy).

¶20

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm incorporated under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 vide partnership deed dated 14.01.2019 Annexure A-2 (copy). Defendant No.1 through defendant No.3 had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs.37,68,173 for purchase of construction equipment machinery, i.e. Komatsu PC 130-7 Hydraulic Excavator vide preliminary credit facility application Form dated 23.10.2019, Annexure A-4 (copy).

¶21

The applicant bank sanctioned above mentioned term loan facility to the defendants vide credit facility application form dated

¶22

OA/2120/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. V. M/S ABS STONE MINES AND OTHERS

¶23

¶24

24.10.2019, Annexure A-5 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶25

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed unattested deed of hypothecation dated 29.10.2019, Annexure A-6 (copy) and proforma invoice dated 04.10.2019 Annexure A-3 (copy) in respect of the said construction equipment machinery.

¶26

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. The applicant bank recalled entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 15.07.2021, Annexure A-7 (copy), but to no avail.

¶27

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.29,04,578/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure A-8 (copy).

¶28

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

¶29

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte on 06.08.2022 and defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27.06.2023.

¶30

OA/2120/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. V. M/S ABS STONE MINES AND OTHERS

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel 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 A-1 to A-8 , 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 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.29,04,578/- (Rupees Twenty

¶35

Nine Lac Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) from the defendants.

¶36

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 credit facility application form dated 24.10.2019, Exhibit A-5 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @10.77% p.a. per annum.

¶37

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

¶38

OA/2120/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. V. M/S ABS STONE MINES AND OTHERS

¶39

¶40

facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, purpose of loan, i.e. business, quantum of loan, 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 @10 % per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

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.29,04,578/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) with current and future simple interest @10% per annum w.e.f. 28.03.2022 , till the date 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 mortgaged/hypothecated property 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.

¶42

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 19.02.2024.

¶44

OA/2120/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. V. M/S ABS STONE MINES AND OTHERS

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

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

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Abs Stone Mines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Abs Stone Mines

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

Canara Bank versus Shri Santosh Kumar Prasad

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Muniyamma

Bank of India versus M/S Accent Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus Sudhir Kushwaha and Ors.

Icici Bank Limited versus Javed

Canara Bank versus M/S Apex International