Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Lukman

DRT27 Jun 2024TA/664/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ICICI Bank sought recovery of overdue loan amounts under a Commercial Equipment and GECL facility from the borrowers and guarantor via Debt Recovery Tribunal. The defendants appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing repayment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to defendants to pay Rs.21,71,104.62 with pendentelite and future interest within 30 days, failing which recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicle and other assets.

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

¶1

T.A. No.664 of 2023

¶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. 664 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited R-846, Rajinder Nagar New Delhi - 110060

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh.Lukman s/o Ummed (Borrower) Proprietor of G.L.Construction & Tiles Udyog

¶9

R/o 489, Village Nahal Ghaziabad, UP-201302

¶10

Also at:

¶11

G.L.Construction & Tiles Udyog Mausuri, Village Nahal Ghaziabad, UP-201302

¶12

Sh.Furakan s/o Ummed

¶13

(Guarantor) R/o 670, Village Nahal Ghaziabad, UP-201302

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Present: Shri Rakesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Institution: 11.01.2022

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 11.01.2022 before DRT-III Delhi and then

¶20

T.A. No.664 of 2023

¶21

transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Ms Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,71,104.62 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Four and paisa Sixty Two only) as on 14.11.2019, out of which Rs.18,20,600.62 in Construction Equipment Loan and Rs.3,50,504/- in GECL loan facility along with pendentelite and future interest @14.00% & 9.25% per annum respectively with monthly rest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Commercial Equipment loan of Rs.17,43,750/- and disbursed the amount of Rs.17,24,750/- to Leo Earthmovers Pvt.Ltd on 12.12.2019 for purchase of commercial vehicle namely "KB Excavator/35205" @14.00% interest per annum repayable in 47 monthly installments of Rs.48,893/-. The defendant further agreed to pay penal interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding equated monthly installments amount and applicant bank entitled to take possession of commercial vehicle having Serial No.ORG17500450. As per request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL loan facility under ECLGS scheme for Rs.3,34,230/- @9.25% rate of interest to be repayable in 48 EMI of Rs.10640/-.

¶23

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

¶24

5c1

¶25

T.A. No.664 of 2023

¶26

Undertaking in Relation to Security, ECLGS for MSMEs etc. on 30.11.2019 and 18.07.2020 in favour of applicant Bank.

¶27

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the vehicle namely^{"JCB Excavator/JS205in} favour of applicant bank having Serial / Regn. No. ORG17500450.

¶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 despite several request and reminders failed to pay the outstanding dues and failed to make the vehicle available for inspection by the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and recall notice dated 20.02.2021 & 03.04.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and handover the possession of commercial vehicle to applicant but defendants did not replied and failed to comply the notice issued. 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 chose to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 19.04.2024, 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.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit Facility

¶31

T.A. No.664 of 2023

¶32

Application along with terms and conditions of the loan ExAW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C & G, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/D, Deed of Guarantee Ex-AW1/E & Ex-AW1/H, Sanction Letter dated 18.072020 ExAW1/F, Undertaking in Relation to Security Ex-AW1/I, ECLGS for MSME Ex-AW1/J, Notice & Receipt Ex-AW1/K & Ex-AW1/L, Statement of Account Ex-AW1/M.

¶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

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,71,104.62 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Four and paisa Sixty Two only) as on 14.11.2019, out of which Rs.18,20,600.62 along with pendentelite and future interest @14.00% in Construction Equipment Loan account and Rs.3,50,504/- in GECL loan account along with pendentelite and future interest

¶38

T.A. No.664 of 2023

¶39

@9.25% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial vehicle namely "JCB Excavator/JS205 having Serial / Regn. No. ORG17500450. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the 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 the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.08.2024.

¶42

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

¶43

Sc6

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.06.2024

Icici Bank Limited v. Lukman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Lukman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Harshad Kinariwala versus Shri Kaushal Umashankar Modi and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus Ramjibhai

Idbi Bank versus Praveshbhai

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Amitoz Hospitality Services

Icici Bank Limited versus Shree Laxmi Industries (India)

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Aditya Chopra