Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Shiv Kumar

DRT15 Jun 2024TA/2702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited against a borrower and guarantor for recovery of Rs. 59.07 lakrs. Due to the respondents' default and non-appearance, the court proceeded ex-parte, allowing the application and directing recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 59,07,374.12 with interest within 30 days; upon default, recovery via sale of hypothecated equipment and other assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shiv Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.2702 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. 2702 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Block E, Videocon Tower Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110055 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shiv Kumar s/o Jai Singh Borrower R/o Flat No.125, Ground Floor Pocket 9, Sector-25 Rohini Pehladpur Bangar, Delhi-42

¶8

Vikrant s/o Bhanwar Singh (Guarantor) R/o B-72, B Block, Lions Enclave, Vikas Nagar Hastal Village New Delhi-110059 Defendants

¶9

Present: Shri Rakesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶10

Date of Institution: 31.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 15.06.2024

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 31.07.2020 before DRT III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶13

¶14

T.A. No.2702 of 2022

¶15

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,07,374.12 (Rupees Fifty Nine lacs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four and paisa Twelve only) as on 05.03.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @10.76% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants being borrower & guarantor, the applicant bank sanctioned 2 Construction Equipment Loans namely Concrete Pump of Rs.55,46,664/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four only) on 29.06.2019 @10.76% interest per annum to be repayable in 47 monthly installments of Rs.73,067/- each in order to purchase Constructions Equipments against hypothecation. That the defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the credit facilities availed by defendant no.1.

¶17

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendants submitted executed Credit Facility Application along with terms and conditions of the loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Deed of Guarantee on 29.06.2019.

¶18

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several request and reminders the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and recall the loan through loan recall notice

¶19

¶20

T.A. No.2702 of 2022

¶21

dated 10.12.2019 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest but defendants have failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants chose to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 17.06.2022, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit Facility Application algng with terms and conditions of the loan Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/D, Deed of Guarantee Ex-AW1/E, Recall Notice Ex-AW1/E, Receipts Ex-AW1/F, Statement of Account Ex-AW1/G.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

T.A. No.2702 of 2022

¶28

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.59,07,374.12 (Rupees Fifty Nine lacs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four and paisa Twelve only) as on 05.03.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest ©10.76% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of 2 Construction Equipment namely Concrete Pumps having serial no.ORG0262200 ORG0262195 hypothecated with applicant bank and in case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶31

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

¶32

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.08.2024.

¶33

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

¶34

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.06.2024

¶36

Icici Bank Limited v. Shiv Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Shiv 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

Prajith Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Bank of India versus Chandan Kumar Sahu

Rajan Prabhakar versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Anand Pal Singh

Bank of India versus Harendra Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Deepali Enterprises