Allowed

Icici Bank Ltd. v. M/S Kay Em Kay Industries and Others

DRT14 Feb 2024OA/1323/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.41,17,920.33 from five defendants who defaulted on an overdraft. The Tribunal adjusted interest to 10% per annum and authorized recovery via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.41,17,920.33 with costs and simple interest @10%p.a.; Liability is joint and several; recovery via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/S Kay Em Kay Industries and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1323/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.03.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 14.02.2024

¶6

ICICI Bank Ltd., a body corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and having its Registered Office at 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 branch offices situated at Plot No.143-A, City Emporium, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002 through its authorized signatory, Sh. Deepak Ahuja

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Kay Em Kay Industries, through its partners, 13-H, Textile Colony, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141101

¶10

Sh. Sudesh Goyal S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Partner M/s Kay Em Kay Industries, R/o H.No.39 K, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141101

¶11

Sh. Vikas Goyal S/o Sh. Sudesh Goyal, Partner M/s Kay Em Kay Industries, R/o H.No.39 K, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141101

¶12

Smt. Aanchal Goyal W/o Sh. Vikas Goyal, Partner M/s Kay Em Kay Industries, R/o H.No.39 K, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141101

¶13

Smt. Santosh Goyal W/o Sh. Sudesh Goyal, R/o H.No.39 K, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, Punjab141101

¶14

………Defendants

¶15

¶16

Advocates: Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, counsel proxy for Sh. D.K. Singal, counsel for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶17

FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of
Rs.41,17,920.33p (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty and Thirty Three Paisa only). The Original Application
has been filed throughSh. Deepak Ahuja, Authorized Signatoryof the
applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 06.02.2018, which isAnnexure A1to this OA.
2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 through
defendant Nos.2 to 5 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Overdraft facility of Rs.50.00 Lacs. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Overdraft facility of Rs.50.00
Lacs vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 17.12.2020, which is
Annexure A3to this OA; and the terms and conditions were duly
accepted by the defendants.
4. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 had mortgaged their immovable
property i.e. Plot measuring 1710 Sq. Yards situated at Village
Dhandra-II, Hadbast No.274, Abadi Farm House, Tehsil and District
Ludhiana, Punjabvide Registered Sale Deed bearing Vasika No.5836
dated 06.07.2012 and Transfer Deed bearing vasika no.8382 dated
04.12.2020 along with the translations, which areAnnexures A5 and
A6to this OA.
Documents executed:- Partnership deed dated 01.04.2017, which is
Annexure A2to this OA; Deed of guarantee dated 17.12.2020, which isAnnexure A4to this OA; Annexure VII-B i.e. declaration dated

¶18

¶19

17.12.2020, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Recall notice dated 21.12.2021, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶20

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.41,17,920.33p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶21

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 17.01.2024.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Deepak Ahuja, Authorized Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶23

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant bank for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.41,17,920.33p (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty and Thirty Three Paisa only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶25

¶26

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @10.50%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.01.2022 till the realization.

¶27

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.41,17,920.33p (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty and Thirty Three Paisa only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @10.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 04.03.2024.

¶32

¶33

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant bank and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal.

¶35

Dated: 14.02.2024

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Ltd. v. M/S Kay Em Kay Industries and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Ltd. v. M/S Kay Em Kay Industries and Others

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

Indian Bank versus Sh. Surinder Singh and Another

Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh and Another

Indian Bank versus Smt. Jaswant Kaur and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S Viney Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurpyair Singh and Others

Indian Bank versus M/S Maya Printers and Others