Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Chandrakant

DRT18 Feb 2025OA/238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs.22,23,866.77 against three joint borrowers who failed to repay agricultural loans. The court fixed future interest at 9% per annum and ordered the recovery certificate based on hypothecated properties and land declaration.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants 1-3 to pay Rs.22,23,866.77 with future interest at 9% p.a. from 29.03.2022; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of securities permitted.

Icici Bank Limited versus Chandrakant — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on:	29.03.2022
Registered on:	18.07.2022
Decided on:	18.02.2025
Duration:	Y M D
	02 10 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J.R. Chauhan Presiding officer)

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.22,23,866.77/- ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.238/2022

¶4

ICICI Bank Ltd., A Registered Company, having its Registered Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakali Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390007 and having one of its Branch Office at ICICI Bank Ltd., H.No.14/151, 14/152, Gut No.6 Paranda, District. Osmanabad-413502. Through it’s Power of Attorney Holder Shri Pravin S/o Bhausaheb Gadekar, Age: 27 Years, Occ : Service, R/o : C/o. ICICI Bank Ltd. Raghuvir Complex, Opp. District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad-431001. Versus

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Chandrakant S/o Hanumant Gore, Age : 35 Years, Occ : Agri, R/o : At Post Antargaon, Bhoom, District Osmanabad413502.

¶7

Pranali Chandrakant Gore, Age : 28 years, Occ : House Wife, R/o : R/o : At Post Antargaon, Bhoom, District

¶8

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 1 of 12

¶9

Osmanabad-413502.

¶10

Suryakant S/o Hanumant Gore, Age : 32, Occ : Agri, R/o : At Post Antargaon, Bhoom, District Osmanabad-413502.

¶11

Sangita Hanumant Gore, Age : 32, Occ : Agri, R/o : At Post Antargaon, Bhoom, … Defendants District Osmanabad-413502.

¶12

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendant Nos.1 to 4

¶13

Mr. U.N. Shete - Advocate Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18^th February, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.22,23,866.77/- (Rupees TwentyTwo Lacs Twenty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred SixtySix and Paise Seventy-Seven only) alongwith further interest at rate 12% with applicable charges as agreed from 29.04.2021 till the date of realization of the entire dues and costs of the application from the defendant nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶17

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the borrowers who had approached the applicant bank for financial assistance and

¶18

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 2 of 12

¶19

submitted the Farmer Financing Facilities – Credit Facility Application Form on 01.06.2015 for Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Facility. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Kisan Credit Card Facility / Working Capital Facility of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide Sanction Letter dated 17^th June, 2015 for a term of 60 months (5 years). The applicant bank also submitted that the Drawing Power and Maximum Permissible Limit was set up for Rs.5,00,000/- for the 1^st year, for Rs.6,30,000/- for the 2^nd year, for Rs.6,65,000/- for the 3^rd year, for Rs.6,85,500/- for the 4^th year and for Rs.7,32,000/- for the 5^th year more particularly mentioned in the Sanction Letter. The defendant nos.1 to 3 have agreed to pay interest @12% p.a. with yearly rests and executed the Key Fact Statements and specifically agreed to pay default / penal interest @2% P.M. in case of default in due repayment of the loan availed by them.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 signed, executed and accepted the ICICI Bank’s Ltd. (All India) Standard terms and conditions for Farmer Financing Facilities. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed the Deed of Hypothecation on 30.06.2015 thereby

¶21

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 3 of 12

¶22

hypothecated the movable properties, farm equipments, crops, cattle, vehicle, mulch, specific assets and receivables mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of the O.A.

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility availed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed necessary loan and security documents mentioned at Paragraph No.6 of the O.A.. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed the Deed of Declaration under Section 5(1) of Maharashtra Provisions of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Bank Act, 1974 dated 30.06.2015 of their agricultural lands in favour of the applicant bank, which are situated at Village Antargaon, Tq. Boom, District Osmanabad, which are as under:

¶24

i) Gat No.142, admeasuring 1 H 62 R, which are bounded as under :

¶25

East	West	South	North
Property of	Property of	Property of	Property of
Vitthal	Bhimrao	Vikram	Vikram
Kokare	Gore	Deshmukh	Mahadev Ijgaj

¶26

ii) Gat No.136, admeasuring 1 H 60 R, which are bounded

¶27

as under :

¶28

East	West	South	North
Property of Hanumant Gore	Property of Sakat Road	Property of Sangita Gore	Property of Vitthal Kokare

¶29

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 4 of 12

¶30

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 again approached the applicant bank for financial assistance and submitted the Farmer Financing Facilities – Credit Facility Application Form on 12.07.2016 for Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Facility. The applicant Bank sanctioned the Kisan Credit Card Facility / Working Capital Facility of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs only) to defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide Sanction Letter dated 22^nd July, 2016 for a term of 60 months (5 years). The applicant bank also submitted that the Drawing Power and Maximum Permissible Limit was set up for Rs.13,00,000/for the 1^st year, for Rs.14,30,000/- for the 2^nd year, for Rs.15,73,000/- for the 3^rd year, for Rs.17,30,300/- for the 4^th year and for Rs.19,03,300/- for the 5^th year more particularly mentioned in the Sanction Letter. The defendant nos.1 to 3 have agreed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. with yearly rests and executed the Key Fact Statements and specifically agreed to pay default / penal interest @2% P.M. in case of default in due repayment of the loan availed by them.

¶31

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 signed, executed and accepted the ICICI Bank’s Ltd. (All India) Standard terms and conditions for Farmer Financing Facilities. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed

¶32

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 5 of 12

¶33

the Deed of Hypothecation on 28.07.2016 thereby hypothecated the movable properties, farm equipments, crops, cattle, vehicle, mulch, specific assets and receivables mentioned in Paragraph No.11 of the O.A.

¶34

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility availed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed necessary loan and security documents mentioned at Paragraph No.12 of the O.A. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 in continuation of the mortgage deed dated 30.06.2015 have executed the Deed of Declaration under Section 5(1) of Maharashtra Provisions of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Bank Act, 1974 of their agricultural lands in favour of the applicant bank, which are situated at Village Antargaon, Tq. Boom, District Osmanabad, which are as under:

¶35

i) Gat No.142, admeasuring 1 H 62 R, which are bounded as under :

¶36

East	West	South	North
Gat No.146	Gat No.168	Gat No.145	Road

¶37

ii) Gat No.136, admeasuring 1 H 60 R, which are bounded as under :

¶38

East	West	South	North
Gat No.137	Gat No.141	Road	Gat No.129

¶39

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 6 of 12

¶40

iii) Gat No.137 admeasuring 0 H 51 R, which are

¶41

bounded as under:

¶42

East	West	South	North
Gat No.138	Gat No.125	Road	Gat No.133

¶43

The applicant bank contended that the charge on the mortgaged properties has been duly recorded in the name of the applicant bank in the other rights column of the 7 x 12 extracts for Rs.7,32,000/- and Rs.11,71,300/- in the revenue record. The documents were read over and explained to the defendant Nos.1 to 3. They have understood and agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the loan documents. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 availed and utilized the loan amount but in spite of repeated demands, they have deliberately failed and neglected to repay the loan amount together with interest. Since the defendants failed to repay the dues as agreed, have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement therefore, the applicant bank was constrained to recall the loan facility granted to the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and as such has issued the Loan Recall Notice on 14^th June, 2021 thereby calling upon to repay the outstanding due amount to Rs.22,23,867/- as on 09^th June, 2021. The applicant bank has submitted that the loan

¶44

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 7 of 12

¶45

account of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 has maintained by the applicant bank in its ordinary course of business and banking activity. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an aggregate amount of Rs.22,23,866.77 Ps, as on 29.04.2021 together with future interest @ 12% per annum with yearly rests till the date of actual realization.

¶46

The particulars of the claim are as under:

¶47

Loan Account No.282051000121 as on 29.04.2021.

¶48

Sr. No.	PARTICULARS	Total In Rs.
1.	Ledger Balance on 05.04.20218	14,34,448.77
2.	Accrued Interest from 01.05.2018 to 29.04.2021	7,89,418.00
	Total Payable	22,23,866.77

¶49

The applicant bank further contended that the cause of action firstly arose on 28.07.2016 when the defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed the various loan documents. The cause of action again arose on 03.07.2021, when the defendant Nos.1 to 3 received the Loan Recall Notice of dated 14^th June, 2021, however, they have failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant bank. Hence, the applicant bank has filed this Original Application to recover

¶50

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 8 of 12

¶51

the dues from the defendant Nos.1 to 3 only, jointly and severally.

¶52

In this matter the defendant Nos.1 to 4 failed to appear despite service of summons by hand as per the Service Affidavit (Exhibit-09). Hence the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 11^th July, 2023.

¶53

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Evidence (Exhibit-04) of Mr. Pravin S/o Bhausaheb Gadekar, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank i.e. ICICI Bank, and has produced on record the original loan documents at Sr. Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/16 alongwith List (Exhibit-05), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶54

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant bank.

¶55

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application and the applicant bank has nowhere claimed any liability / amount due against the defendant No.4, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed against defendant Nos.1 to 3 only.

¶56

The applicant Bank has claimed further interest at rate 12%

¶57

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 9 of 12

¶58

with applicable charges as agreed from 29.04.2021 till the date of realization of the entire dues and costs of the

¶59

application from the defendant nos.1 to 3 only jointly and severally. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶60

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(A) Original Application No. 238/2022 is allowed with cost.

¶63

(B) As the applicant bank has not claimed any due amount against the defendant No.4, the Original Application No.238/2022 is allowed with cost against the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 only.

¶64

(C) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are ordered and directed to pay jointly and severally to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.22,23,866.77/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lacs Twenty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Six and Paise SeventySeven only) along with future interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the

¶65

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 10 of 12

¶66

original application i.e. 29^th March, 2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶67

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the equitable mortgage properties executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 are as under:

¶68

i) Gat No.142, admeasuring 1 H 62 R, which are bounded as under :

¶69

East	West	South	North
Gat No.146	Gat No.168	Gat No.145	Road

¶70

ii) Gat No.136, admeasuring 1 H 60 R, which

¶71

are bounded as under :

¶72

East	West	South	North
Gat No.137	Gat No.141	Road	Gat No.129

¶73

iii) Gat No.137 admeasuring 0 H 51 R, which are bounded as under:

¶74

(E)

¶75

East	West	South	North
Gat No.138	Gat No.125	Road	Gat No.133

¶76

(E) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the Deed of Hypothecation which is marked at Exhibit-AW-1/6 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3

¶77

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 11 of 12

¶78

dated 30.06.2015 i.e. Hypothecated movable properties, farm equipments, crops, cattle, vehicle, mulch, specific assets and receivables, as is mentioned in Para No.5 of the Original Application,.

¶79

(F) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated properties as described in Deed of Hypothecation and mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

¶80

(G) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶81

(H) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶82

Pronounced in open Court. Date :18.02.2025.

¶83

Sd/(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶84

[SBJ] (OA No. 238/2022) Page 12 of 12

Icici Bank Limited v. Chandrakant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Chandrakant

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

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Ramdas

State Bank of India versus M/S Shree Sai Sports

State Bank of India versus Gayabai Bajirao Shinde

Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Veet Udyog