Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Satish Kumar

DRT24 Jan 2024OA/638/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by ICICI Bank to recover Rs. 33.78 lakh along with future simple interest at 8% p.a. from defaulted agriculturist borrowers and a guarantor, remitting the debtor to sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 33,78,425/- with future simple interest at 8% p.a. w.e.f. 10.04.2023, enforceable against sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Satish Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 638/2023

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.04.2023

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 24^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited , having its registered office at Land Mark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007, having its Branch at S.C.O. 237-238, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Authorised Representative, Sh. Parveen Kumar

¶6

…..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Jail Singh r/o House No. 204, Barwala, Panchkula, Haryana-134118

¶9

Sh. Mohan Lal s/o Sh. Jail Singh r/o House No. 204, Barwala, Panchkula, Haryana-134118

¶10

Sh. Karnail Singh s/o Sh. Jagir Singh r/o House No. 15, Machhrauli, Shahbad, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136135

¶11

....Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Kaveesh Kailey proxy counsel for Sh. Puneet Tuli counsel for the applicant bank (through VC) Defendants ex parte vide order dated 27.06.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks

¶15

and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), against the defendants for recovery of Rs.33,78,425/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five Only) . It has been

¶16

OA/638/2023 ICICI BANK VS SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 2

¶17

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).

¶18

The brief facts of the case of the applicant as per Original Application are that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for grant of KCC Facility of Rs. 25 lakh vide farmer finance facility application Form dated 12.07.2016, Annexure-A2 (copy). Defendant No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan.

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned KCC Facility of Rs. 35,35,700/- , as per terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facility, the defendants executed hypothecation deed dated 30.08.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid loan facility was further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 48 Kanal situated in the revenue estate of Mandi, Hadbast No. 415, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, Punjab, fully detailed in para No. 5(v) to 5(x) of the Original Application. Declaration dated 29.08.2016 under section 4(1) of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, is Annexure-A4 (copy).

¶22

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facility was duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to

¶23

OA/638/2023 ICICI BANK VS SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 3

¶24

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 entire outstanding amount vide notices dated 30.12.2022, Annexure-A6 (colly) (copy), and its postal details, Annexure-A7 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, a sum of Rs.33,78,425/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five Only) , is recoverable against the defendants as per statement of account, duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶26

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

¶27

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 27.06.2023 .

¶28

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

¶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

¶31

OA/638/2023 ICICI BANK VS SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 4

¶32

amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A4 and A6 to A8 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.33,78,425/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five Only) from the defendants.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause, has claimed rate of interest @11.94% per annum plus penal interest @2% per annum. In hypothecation deed dated 30.08.2016, Annexure-A3 (copy), the rate of interest has been mentioned @11.85% per annum.

¶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, nature of the mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agricultural , present conditions of economy based on agriculture, 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 @8% per

¶35

OA/638/2023 ICICI BANK VS SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 5

¶36

annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

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.33,78,425/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five Only) with current and future simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 10.04.2023 , 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.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 12.03.2024.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Satish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Satish 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

Md Raziullah Khan versus Canara Bank

Shakti Earth Movers LLP versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Awadhesh Kumar Yadav

Sri Ranjeet Kumar versus Idbi Bank

Yashwant Shaikshanik Krida va Sanskritik Sanstha Buldhana versus Auxilo Finserve Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized Officer

Smt Asha Devi versus Punjab National Bank