Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Ajay Kumar

DRT8 Nov 2024OA/1201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank's application for recovery of Rs.20.97 lakhs with interest against two defendants who failed to appear. The court ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate and directed the recovery officer to enforce execution against mortgaged lands and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,97,796/- with interest allowed; recovery certificate issued; defendants' joint and several liability confirmed; execution against mortgaged property and personal assets directed.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajay Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1201/2022 Date of Institution: 08.06.2022 Date of Decision: 08.11.2024

¶4

ICICI Bank Ltd., one of its branch offices situated at ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.237-238, Sector – 20, Panchkula, Haryana.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Kumar, R/o Village Dhaban Kokarian, Tehsil Abohar and District Fazilka – 152117.

¶8

Sita Rani W/o Ram Kumar, R/o Village Dhaban Kokarian, Tehsil Abohar and District Fazilka – 152117.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. S.K. Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.20,97,796/- with interest @12% per annum with yearly rests from 08.06.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

ICICI Bank Ltd., (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.20,97,796/- with interest against Sh. Ajay Kumar and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 11.03.2016, it had granted a KCC Limit of Rs.17.50 Lacs to defendants for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendants had mortgaged their land (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with yearly rests. On 08.06.2022, a sum of Rs.20,97,796/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

On 07.07.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶17

¶18

put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.02.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Parveen Kumar, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-7. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.17.50 Lacs and on 08.06.2022, a sum of Rs.20,97,796/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.20,97,796/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Six Only) with interest @12% per annum with yearly rests from 08.06.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 09.12.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 08.11.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

Icici Bank Limited v. Ajay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Ajay 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

Union Bank of India versus Addikiin Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Yatin

Idbi Bank versus Chidambara Muthian Nathan

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pardeep Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Arti Dairy

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Rupinder Singh