Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Shri. Jagmohan

DRT8 Jul 2025OA/264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank against two borrowers and a guarantor for recovery of outstanding dues of approximately Rs.54.12 lakhs along with interest and costs, defaulting on commercial and guaranteed loan accounts.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs.54,11,772/- with future interest and costs within 30 days, failing which amount to be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle and assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri. Jagmohan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.264 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

O.A. No. 264 of 2023

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Jagmohan s/o Bhal Singh Prop. MD Traders & Earthmovers 304, Machhgar (83), Near Panchayat Ghar Faridabad, Haryana-121004

¶9

Also at: MD Traders & Earthmovers Machhgar, Ballabhgarh Near Panchayat Ghar Faridabad, Haryana-121004

¶10

Sh.Kamlesh w/o Bhal Singh 304, Machhgar (83), Near Panchayat Ghar Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Defendants

¶11

Present: Sh.Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 22.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 22.02.2023 through Sh. Rajat Chandra, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

sd_

O.A. No.264 of 2023

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.54,11,772/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two only) as on 13.02.2023, out of which Rs.40,76,310/- in Commercial Loan account and Rs.13,35,462/- in GECL account along with interest @10.88% & @9.25% respectively pendentelite per annum with monthly rest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 being proprietor of M/s MD Traders & Earthmovers and defendant no.2 as co-borrower vide loan application dated 28.11.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.30,73,228/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight only) @10.88% interest per annum & disbursed Rs.29,65,000/- to M/s GRD Trucks Pvt. Ltd. under Loan-cumHypothecation scheme which was to be repayable in 46 equated monthly installments of Rs.89,200/- for purchasing commercial vehicle namely ALU2518/BS4 having Registration no.HR-38AB-8819. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Rs.10,43,740/- @9.25% interest to be repayable in 48 EMIs under the ECLGS scheme on 31.07.2020. The defendants also agreed to pay penal interest @24% per annum on outstanding EMIs and applicant bank entitled to take the possession of the vehicle in the event of default. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for ECLGS loan facility sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of the Defendant no.1.

¶19

¶20

O.A. No.264 of 2023

¶21

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants executed Credit Facility Application Form along with Terms & Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Sanction Letter, Deed of Guarantee by defendant no.2, ECLGS for MSME - Self Undertaking by the Borrower with the applicant bank on 28.11.2019 and 31.07.2020

¶22

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the Commercial vehicle namely ALU2518/BS4 having Registration no.HR-38AB-8819, Engine No. KFPZ116315 and Chassis No. MB1HTLHD6KPFJ7330 in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction despite several requests and failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and forced to recall the loan facilities provided to the defendants vide notices dated 20.02.2021 & 08.07.2021 to make payment of outstanding amount and handover the possession of commercial vehicle but defendants not cared to reply notices and also to handover the peaceful possession of the vehicle. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 12.03.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and

¶25

¶26

O.A. No.264 of 2023

¶27

even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rajat Chandra, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit facility Application along with Terms and conditions Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/D, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/E, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/F, Deed of Guarantee Ex-AW1/G, Undertaking in Relation to Security ExAW1/H, ECLGS for MSMEs Self Undertaking by the Borrower Ex.AW-1/I, Notices and Receipts Ex.AW-1/K, Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/L.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

5d-

O.A. No.264 of 2023

ORDER

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.54,11,772/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two only) out of which

¶37

Rs.40,76,310/- @10.88% pendentelite and future interest;

¶38

Rs.13,35,462/- @9.25% pendentelite and future interest

¶39

per annum with monthly rests and costs from date of filing of this application failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated Commercial Vehicle namely AL U2518/BS4 having Registration no.HR-38AB-8819 Engine no.KFPZ116315 and Chassis No.MB1HTLHD6KPFJ7330. 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} to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶41

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.09.2025.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 08.07.2025

¶45

Icici Bank Limited v. Shri. Jagmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Shri. Jagmohan

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Shiva Enterprises

Ms Acrle Sports versus Bank of Baroda

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Bijender Singh

Lutru Mahadev Gaushala Charitable Society versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Sital Singh

Central Bank of India versus M/S Shivkirpa Filling Station