Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Bhupal

DRT7 Feb 2024OA/191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 40,26,405 along with interest against five defendants, proceeding ex-parte due to their non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued directing defendants to pay Rs. 40,26,405 with 7% simple interest per annum from filing date; liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Bhupal — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.191/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.01.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 7^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 and its Branch at SCO Nos. 237-238, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Parveen Kumar

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Bhupal s/o Sh. Roshan Singh r/o House No. 61, Block-3, Village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal-132001

¶9

Sh. Roshan r/o House No. 61, Block-3, Village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal-132001

¶10

Smt. Savitri Devi w/o Sh. Roshan r/o House No. 61, Block-3, Village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal-132001

¶11

Sh. Mandeep Kumar s/o Sh. Roshan r/o House No. 61, Block-3, Village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal-132001

¶12

Sh. Hukam Singh s/o Sh. Puran Singh r/o House No. 54, Village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal-132001

¶13

....Defendants

¶14

Argued by: Ms Dipti Toni proxy counsel for Sh. Gagandeep Toni Advocate for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 03.11.2023

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank

¶17

under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

¶18

OA/191/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶19

Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.40,26,405/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Five Only). It has been filed through Sh. Parveen Kumar, Authorised Representative of the applicant bank stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2021, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶20

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had approached the applicant bank for grant of Credit Facility of Rs. 45,00,000/- under KCC vide credit facility application Form dated 17.06.2015, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 5 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount.

¶21

The applicant bank sanctioned aforesaid credit facility to the defendants, vide sanction letter dated 26.08.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy), as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed hypothecation deed dated 13.08.2015, Annexure-A4 (copy) and guarantee agreement dated 14.08.2015, Annexure-A5 (copy).

¶23

The aforesaid limit was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant No.1 in respect of agricultural land measuring 133 Kanal 16 Marla situated in the revenue estate of Sagga, Hadbast No. 58, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, Haryana, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) of the Original Application.

¶24

The documents related to the mortgage are as under:

¶25

OA/191/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶26

i. Registered indenture of mortgage dated 13.08.2015, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶27

ii. Letter dated 13.08.2015 to the Tehsidar/Naib Tehsildar, Nilokheri, for entry/mutation of the mortgaged property, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶28

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 the entire outstanding amount vide loan recall notices dated 16.10.2021, Annexures-A8 to A13 (copy) and postal receipts, Annexures-A14, A15 and A16 (copy), but to no avail.

¶29

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.40,26,405/(Rupees Forty Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Five Only), is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A17 (copy).

¶30

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

¶31

Notices of the Original Application were duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.11.2023 .

¶32

In support of contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Manager Legal of the applicant bank was filed.

¶33

OA/191/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶34

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

¶35

It was argued by the learned proxy counsel for the applicant bank 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-A1 to A17, 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.40,26,405/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Twenty

¶36

Six Thousand Four Hundred and Five Only) from the defendants.

¶37

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed rate of interest @12% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In sanction letter dated 26.08.2015, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @12% per annum.

¶38

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, nature of mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agriculture, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone

¶39

OA/191/2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶40

drastically downhill in yesteryears and defendant No. 3 being a female, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% 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.40,26,405/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Five Only) with current and future simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 27.01.2022 , 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 21.03.2024.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Bhupal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Bhupal

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

C K Prakasan versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Anil Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Sarbdial Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Medipelli Uppalaiah

Canara Bank versus M/S Asad Corporation

Canara Bank versus Smt. Gayathri Madiraju