Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Sandeep Kumar

DRT19 Dec 2023OA/808/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte application, ICDI Bank Limited sought recovery of Rs. 32,12,541 from two borrowers for term loans and other facilities. The Tribunal allowed the application, recognizing the debt liability and modifying the claimed interest. The order grants a uniform simple interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 32,12,541 with simple interest at 9% p.a. w.e.f. 26.03.2022 till realization. Liberty to enforce claim through execution proceedings or sale of personal assets.

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

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 808/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 26.03.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 19^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 and having Branches all over India and one of its Branches situated at 1^st Floor, Near N. K. Sharma Office, Chandigarh-Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, through its Authorized Signatory, Mohamad Vajid

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sandeep Kumar s/o Sh. Ravi Sharma r/o H. No.34, Ward No.27, New Aabadi Camp, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana135001

¶9

Sh. Rajat Bakshi s/o Sh. Ravi Sharma r/o H. No.34, Ward No.27, New Aabadi Camp, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-160001

¶10

....Defendants

¶11

Argued by: Sh. Manav Singal proxy counsel for Sh. D.K. Singal counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

OA/808/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 2

¶15

brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.32,12,541/(Rupees Thirty Two Lac Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) . It has been filed through Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Authorised Signatory of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide power of attorney, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that both the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs.16,26,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application Form dated 31.05.2018, Annexure-A2 (copy) . Further approached for another term loan facility of Rs.8,01,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application Form dated 28.09.2018 , Annexure-A6 (copy). Further, again approached for another term loan facility of Rs.16,94,173/- vide preliminary credit facility application Form dated 27.11.2018 Annexure-A10 (copy) and again approached for ECLGS facility of Rs.7,80,000/- vide preliminary credit facility application Form dated 28.06.2020 Annexure-A14 (copy).

¶17

The applicant bank sanctioned above mentioned credit facilities to the defendants vide credit facility application Form-cumsanction letters dated 31.05.2018, 28.09.2018, 27.11.2018 and 29.06.2020, Annexures-A3, A7, A11 and A15 (copy) as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶18

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. deeds of hypothecation dated 31.05.2018 and 28.09.2018, Annexures-A4

¶19

OA/808/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 3

¶20

and A8 (copy), Form of particulars, Annexure-A5 (copy), (copy), Form of particulars, Annexure- A9 (copy), deed of hypothecation dated 27.11.2018, Annexure-A12 (copy) and Tax Invoice dated 16.11.2018, Annexure-A13 (copy).

¶21

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank leading to the loan accounts becoming irregular. The applicant bank recalled the entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notice dated 23.07.2021, Annexure A-16 (copy), but to no avail.

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of

¶23

Rs.32,12,541/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lac Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexures A-17, A-18, A-19 and A-20 (copy).

¶24

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

¶25

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon

¶26

the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2023 .

¶27

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

¶28

OA/808/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 4

¶29

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

¶30

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-20 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were 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.32,12,541/- (Rupees

¶31

Thirty Two Lac Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) from the defendants.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed interest @24% per annum in term loan facilities with monthly rests. In credit facility application forms-cum-sanction letters dated 31.05.2018, 28.09.2018, 27.11.2018 and 29.06.2020, Annexures A-3, A-7, A- 11 and A-15 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @9.52% per annum in respect of term loan facility-I, @11.51% per annum in respect of term loan facility-II, @9.90% per annum in respect of term loan facility-III and @9.25% per annum in respect of ECLGS facility with monthly rests.

¶33

OA/808/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 5

¶34

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 Commercial Vehicles, 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 @9% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶35

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.32,12,541/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lac Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) with current and future simple interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 26.03.2022 , 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 vehicles 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.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

OA/808/2022 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER 6

¶38

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 12.02.2024.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Sandeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Sandeep 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Messers John Varieties

Ms Mkd Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mrs Reshma Parmeshwar Meshram versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S B.M. Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Achin Mehta

Swastika Gautum Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank