Allowed

Icici Bank Ltd. v. M/s Sadhu Ram Industries and Others

DRT8 Apr 2024OA/1822/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. under Section 19 RDDBFI Act against four defendants. The court declared the defendants liable to repay Rs. 33,41,097.66 with interest at 10% p.a. and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,41,097.66 with interest at 10% p.a.; Issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/s Sadhu Ram Industries and Others — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1822/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 08.04.2024

¶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. Vikas Kaundal.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Sadhu Ram Industries, through its partners situated at Palahi Gate, Bhulla Rai Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab144401.

¶10

Sh. Sadhu Ram S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram, Partner M/s Sadhu Ram Industries, R/o Street No. 2, Ankhi Nagar, Bhulla Rai Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab-144401.

¶11

Sh. Naresh S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, Partner M/s Sadhu Ram Industries, R/o Street No. 2, Ankhi Nagar, Bhulla Rai Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab-144401.

¶12

Sh. Sunny Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, Partner M/s Sadhu Ram Industries, R/o Street No. 2, Ankhi Nagar, Bhulla Rai Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab-144401.

¶13

………Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the Applicant Defendants are ex-parte

¶16

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,41,097.66p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Forty One Thousand Ninety Seven and Sixty Six paisa only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Vikas Kaundal, Authorized signatory of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 through its partners i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had approached the applicant bank for the grant of Overdraft facility of Rs.20.00 Lacs, Final credit application dated 20.12.2017, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. 3. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Overdraft Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Intimation Letter dated 20.12.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no.1 through its partners i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶20

Defendant No 2 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. total land measuring 10 1/2 Marla situated at H.B. 73, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab through mortgage of sale deed bearing Vasika No. 3808 dated 11.09.1995, along with its translations, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Annexure VII-B i.e. Declaration, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: - Partnership Deed dated 01.01.2016, which is Annexure A2 to this OA, Partnership Authority letter and Deed of Guarantee both dated 20.12.2017, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 18.05.2022, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA

¶22

and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a

¶23

¶24

debit of Rs.33,41,097.66p, 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.

¶25

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 08.02.2024.

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kaundal, Authorized Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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 A10 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.33,41,097.66p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Forty One Thousand Ninety Seven and Sixty Six 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.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed interest @15.15%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.09.2022 till the realization. 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

¶28

¶29

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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.33,41,097.66p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Forty One Thousand Ninety Seven and Sixty Six 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 mortgaged property 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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.04.2024. 15. 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.

¶30

Pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal . Dated: 08.04.2024

¶31

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶32

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Ltd. v. M/s Sadhu Ram Industries and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Ltd. v. M/s Sadhu Ram 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

Central Bank of India versus M/S Nandha Brick Kiln and Others

Canara Bank versus Parteek Jain

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Charan Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Guljar Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others