Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr Dipendra Pratap Singh

DRT11 Sept 2025OA/1077/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues arising from a housing loan default. The court directed repayment and sale of mortgaged assets. The third defendant (builder) was exonerated for lack of proof of liability. Interest was reduced from claimed 15% to allowed 10%.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 41,82,387.00 with interest at 10% p.a.; direction to pay dues or face recovery from secured and personal assets; injunction against transfer of properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Dipendra Pratap Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateof orderor lroceedin.	Order withsignatureof court		Officeaction takenwithdate
OANo.1077/2022 11.09.2025	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separ attachedin06 sheets.	and ately
	Orderbe website uploaded on theTribu (Dictated) r<br>r <br>(Pravas Kumar Si PresidingOffice (Manoj)	nal’s ngh) r

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL A’ LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Original Application No. 1077 of 2022

¶7

Dated: 11.09.2025

¶8

ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Office at 11, M.G. Marg, Hazratganj , Lucknow. . . . . . . .. Applicant Bank Versus 1. Mehenden Pal Singh & 1) Mr. Dipendra Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Ashok Kakkar, Resident of Flat No. SF-1, 9/19A, Sector-3, Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad201005 (U.P.) ALSO: Flat No. 1402, 14th Floor, Antriksh Golf Links, Tower-A, Plot No. GH-15 A, Sector-0 1, Greater Noida, Noida-20 1307(U.P.)

¶9

1. Mrs. Usha Singh, W/o Mr. Dipendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Flat No. SF-1, 9/19A, Sector-3 Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005 (U.P.)

¶10

ALSO: Flat No. 1402, 14th Floor, Antriksh Golf Links, Tower-A, Plot No. GH-15 A, Sector-0 1, Greater Noida, Noida-201307(U.P.) 3. M/s Antriksh Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at:- 34/C-8, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi110084

¶11

. . . . . . defendants

¶12

Counsel for applicant-bank: Shri Manoj Chopra, Advocate Counsel for the defendants: None.

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 41,82,387.00 (Rupees Forty One Lacs

¶15

¶16

2 O.A. No. 1077 of 2022

¶17

Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶18

The brief facts of case :- the defendants No.1 & 2 approached the applicant bank for financial assistance as Housing Loan. The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.33.50 Lacs vide sanction letter dt. 19.07.2016 (Exhibit A-3). The defendant no. 3 is the Builder who has given written permission to mortgage the secured assets to defendant no. I & 2. (Annexure A-8)

¶19

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant--bank on 30.09.2016 loan and security documents.

¶20

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No. 1 & 2 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. situated in Group Housing Project, being Flat No. 1402, 14th Floor, Antriksh Golf Links, Tower-A, Plot No. GH-15 A, Sector-01, Greater Noida, Noida201307(U.P.) in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit A-8). It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant No.3, M/S Antriksh Engineers Developers Pvt. Ltd., has given written permission to mortgage the secured asset of defendant no. 1 & 2.

¶21

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank opened loan account in the name of the defendant No.1.

¶22

After availing the abovementioned credit facility from the applicantbank, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement as required in the matter. The applicant-bank made all possible efforts through oral persuasion and letters etc. The defendants was reminded many times by several applications

¶23

P \v, J

¶24

O.A. No. 1077 of 2022

¶25

by the applicant-bank to regularize the loan account, but the defendants kept silent and did not come forward to make any efforts regarding payment of dues but the loan account of the defendants remained irregular and the defendants did not care to deposit the amount to adjust/ regularize the account despite various assurances given by defendants. Consequently, the loan accounts of the defendant No.1 were classified as N.P.A. on 31.01.2021 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicant-bank issued legal notice Dated 23.06.2021 (Exhibit No. A- 5) to the defendants and requested for repayments, but the Defendants did not paid their heed to the same, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶26

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs. 41,82,387.00 (Rupees Forty One Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven only) including interest upto 13.07.2022, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The applicant bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No. A-7)

¶27

The cause of action :- (i) credit facility were sanctioned by the applicant Bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants on 30.09.2016 (ii) when demand Notice dt. 23.06.2021 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶28

The defendant no. I & 2 appeared on 21.09.2023 but the defendants but did not file written statement within stipulated period, therefore their opportunity to file written statement has been closed vide order dated 21.09.2023

¶29

\ ]\ \J/ -.J

¶30

O.A. No. 1077 of 2022

¶31

The only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶32

In support of the case Shri Shyam Singh, Relationship Manager of the applicant bank has filed an affidavit.

¶33

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No. A-1 to Exhibit No. A-8, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facility from the applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicant- Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶34

Accordingly, the defendants No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgement failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶35

From perusal of record I find that any Tripartite agreement between the applicant bank, defendant no. 1 & 2 with defendant no. 3 M/s Antriksh III!! Engineers Developers Pvt Ltd has not been brought on record, the amount has been credited in to account of defendant no 1 and 2, and the bank has

¶36

--/ kIlt

¶37

O.A. No. 1077 of 2022

¶38

¶39

also failed to prove liability of defendant no. 3, therefore defendant no. 3 is exonerated from the liability of the dues.

¶40

The interest claimed:- @15% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f.

¶41

14.07.2022 till the date of realization and costs.

¶42

The interest allowed:- @10% per annum with monthly rate reducing balance from the date of filing of the O. A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶43

1 find that the bank has proved execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendant No. 1 &2 with costs. The liability of the defendant No. 1 & 2 are joint and several and to be realized from the mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties.

¶44

It is, therefore , ordered

¶45

(i) That the Original Application No.1077 of 2022 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs. 41,82,387.00 (Rupees Forty One Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven only) along with the interest @ 10% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 20.10.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds against the defendant No. 1 & 2.

¶46

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendant;

¶47

(iii) The applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property & hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the

¶48

¶49

O.A. No. 1077 of 2022

¶50

provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the applicant bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶51

(iv) The defendants are here by restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant-bank.

¶52

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by fixing 02.12.2025 before Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow.

¶53

Judgement is pronounced in the open court.

¶54

Dated: 11.09.2025

¶55

q \ ::ijk (Pravas Kuma Singh) Presiding Officer

¶56

/ q/'

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr Dipendra Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr Dipendra Pratap Singh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd Haider versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sudhir versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

M S Silver King Silver versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Professional Education Trust

Naveen Kumar Sahni versus Central Bank of India

Amarnath Polutary versus Canara Bank