Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Hemanth Jayanth

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The claim was unopposed due to ex parte proceedings. The court awarded a reduced interest rate and granted recovery of the principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.23,98,823.61 plus 8% p.a. simple interest from filing date, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally against the respondents' assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Hemanth Jayanth — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1371/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ICICI Bank Limited having its Registered Office at “Landmark", Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390 007 and its Corporate Office at ICICT Lower, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 and amongst others having one of its branch office at Mytree Centre, No. 4/10, Hosur Road, Bommannahalli, Bengaluru 560 068 Rep. by its officer and Power of Attorney Mr. Pramodh G. … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. HEMANT JAYANTH BET Aged about 44 years S/o Jayant Sudarshan Bet No.A-616.MAY Flower Block Brigade Millenium Signal. JP Nagar 7th phase. Wood Rose Club Bengaluru south-560078

¶9

Also at No. 215 Royal Lake Front Residency Phase L. Kothanur Bengaluru-560078.

¶10

2. GRAVAN PVT LTD

¶11

No.46,4th cross, Gauravnagar 12th main, near Shiva Temple

¶12

OA. No. 1371/2022

¶13

¶14

7th phase. JP Nagar, Bengaluru-560078 …DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : M/s. Anvaya Law Advocates & consultants, Defendants : Exparte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.23,98,823.61 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Three and Sixty One Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed vehicle loan of Rs.22,00,000/-, agreeing to pay the loan amount in 58 EMIs of Rs.60,503/- along with interest at the rate of 14.50% per annum.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents.

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit

¶22

OA. No. 1371/2022

¶23

¶24

facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA. The applicant bank seizes the vehicle under the contractual obligation on 25.02.2018.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the balance amount due in the account.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.11.2024.

¶27

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A11 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶29

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶32

OA. No. 1371/2022

¶33

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA and execution of tripartite agreement agreeing creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate of interest, penal interest/default interest, and also the fact that hypothecated vehicle already repossessed which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at reduced rate of 8.00% p.a.

¶38

OA. No. 1371/2022

¶39

¶40

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1371/2022 stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.23,98,823.61 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Three and Sixty One Paise only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against their asset including the schedule vehicle.

¶43

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶44

iii) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶45

iv) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶46

OA. No. 1371/2022

¶47

¶48

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶49

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of

¶50

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶51

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of August 2025].

¶52

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

ANNEXURES

¶54

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶55

AW-1: Pramodh Gurumallappa, collection Manager of the applicant bank.

¶56

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶57

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Power of Attorney
A2	PAN of defendant No.1
A3	Driving License of defendant No.1
A4	Preliminary credit facility
A5	Credit facility applicant form
A6	Key fact statement
A7	RC of the vehicle
A8	Copyof the certificate downloaded from RTO

¶58

OA. No. 1371/2022

¶59

¶60

	website
A9	Loan recall notice dated 10.03.2021 issued to the defendant No.1 and 2 by the applicant
	bank
	Foreclosure letter dated 13.10.2022 issued to
A10	the defendant No.1 and 2 by the applicant
	bank
A11	Statement of account along with certificate

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Hemanth Jayanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Hemanth Jayanth

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

Punjab National Bank versus Kavita

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amit Kumar

Central Bank of India versus M/S Fortress Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Lanvin Exports versus Canara Bank

Mrs Gayathri S and Another versus Tumkur Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

K R Nagesh versus Katta Radhakrishnaiah Nagesh