Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Earth Water Ltd.

DRT6 Jul 2024TA/1639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues against Earth Water Limited and its directors. The court recalculated interest from 24% to 12% per annum and directed recovery against the defendants' property.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 5,16,98,550.99 as on 25.10.2019 with interest @12% p.a. from filing date and costs within 30 days, to be recoverable from sale of immovable property.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Earth Water Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A No.1639 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 1639 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶6

2nd Floor, Videocon Towers Block E-1, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Earth Water Limited Corporate Office

¶10

701, 7th Floor, Eros City Square Sector-9, Gurugram Haryana-122018

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Earth Water Limited Plot No.362-363, Urban Estate

¶13

Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana-121005

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Earth Water Limited A-1/152, Neb Sarai,

¶16

Earth Water House Main IGNOU Road, New Delhi-110068

¶17

Sh.Sunil Ghorawat S/o Sugan Chand Ghorawat MG-105, Mangolias, DLF Phase V, Galleria DLF IV Gurugram-122009 Defendants

¶18

Present: Sh.Amit Jain, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶19

Date of Institution: 26.11.2019

¶20

Date of Pronouncement: 06.07.2024

¶21

T.A No.1639 of 2022

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 26.11.2019 through Shri Nitesh Vashisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank, under section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,16,98,550.99 (Rupees Five Crore Sixteen Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty and paisa Ninety Nine only) as on 25.10.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum with monthly rests from 25.10.019 till the date of realization and costs.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Corporate Card facility for a total sum of Rs.495.00 lacs (Rupees Four Crores Ninety Five Lacs only) on 04.03.2019 in terms of Credit Arrangement Letter as the terms and conditions contained in documents acknowledged and executed by the defendants with applicant bank. On the request of defendant no.1, applicant bank issued credit card bearing no. 4205806003996001 in the name of defendant no.2 as approved by Board Resolution dated 20.02.2019 of defendant no.1.

¶25

The applicant bank submitted that defendants executed Credit Arrangement Letter dated 04.03.2019 & agreed to abide all the terms and conditions governing the usage of credit card and assured to make payments regularly to

¶26

T.A No.1639 of 2022

¶27

applicant bank as per statements for the utilization of credit cards.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and acted contrary despite repeated reminders, requests and demands. The defendants failed to regularize the loan account and failed to pay the outstanding dues to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued the legal demand notice dated 05.09.2019 calling upon the defendants to make the payment of entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendant failed to make payment outstanding, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 06.05.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte due to non filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Nitesh Vashisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1 (OSR), Copy of PAN Card — Mark A, Copy of Aadhar Card — Mark B, Copy of Letter issued by Defendant no.1 — Mark C, Terms & Conditions Ex.AW1/2, Credit Arrangement Letter Ex.AW1/3, Copy of Board Resolution Mark-D, Corporate Credit Card Application form Ex.AW1/4, Guarantee Deed Ex.AW1/5, Original Individual Application Form Ex.AW1/6, Demand

¶31

T.A No.1639 of 2022

¶32

Notice dated 05.09.2019 along with POD Ex.AW1/7(Colly), Statement of Account dated 25.10.2019 Ex.AW-1/8, Certificate under 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW1/9, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.AW1/10.

¶33

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶34

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts

¶35

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶36

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶37

T.A No.1639 of 2022

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.5,16,98,550.99 (Rupees Five Crore Sixteen Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty and paisa Ninety Nine only) as on 25.10.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.00°/0 per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization and costs, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the immovable and immovable property of defendants.

¶40

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶41

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 04 09.2024.

¶42

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶43

Ste -> > (GOVIND BALITABHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶44

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.07.2024

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Earth Water Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Earth Water Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Social Agency for Women & Rural Development(Saward versus State Bank of India

Remya Krishnan versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Dinesh

Punjab National Bank versus Manoj Kumar Mandal

Ms Shree Mahabir Grain Store versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Kanpur Drug Agency

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Social Agency for Women &amp; Rural Development(Saward versus State Bank of India

Remya Krishnan versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Dinesh

Punjab National Bank versus Manoj Kumar Mandal

Ms Shree Mahabir Grain Store versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Kanpur Drug Agency

Social Agency for Women & Rural Development(Saward versus State Bank of India