Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. PNB Enterprises a Proprietoryship Concern Rep by Its Prop Smt. Netravathi.S.K

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application seeking a recovery certificate for loan defaults after finding the defendants in default and uncontroverted evidence sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 81,36,683.70 plus interest at 11.75% p.a. to be recovered jointly, severally, and personally from defendants including attached movables.

Icici Bank Limited versus PNB Enterprises a Proprietoryship… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.316/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, 4/10, Mythree Tower, Bommanahalli, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-68, Represented through its Constituted Attorney, Sri. Pramodh.G, Son of B Gurumallappa.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

PNB Enterprises, A Proprietorship Concern, Property No. 4113/8016, 4114/8017, Near Sreyas Hospital, Vivekanandanagar, Hosakote, Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka, Represented by its Prop Smt. Netravathi. S K.

¶9

Smt. Netravathi S. K. Wife of Bharath Kumar L, 105, VR Shobha Medose, Government College Road, Hoskote, Bengaluru- 562114.

¶10

Bharath Kumar L, Son of Muniswappa Lakshmaiah, 105, VR Shobha Medose, Government College Road, Hoskote, Bengaluru 562114.

...DEFENDANTS

OA 316/2023

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant Defendants

¶16

: M/s. Vidhii Partners : 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 for Rs. 81,36,683.70/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three and Paise Seventy Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants. The 1^st defendant is a proprietary concern with the 2^nd defendant as its proprietor. The 3^rd defendant is the co-borrower to the loans availed.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities of Rs. 56,03,330/- (Rupees Fifty Six lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Only) and Rs. 27,13,583.40/- (Rupees Twenty Seven lakh Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three and Paise Forty Only) and GECL Credit facility of Rs. 8,71,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy One Thousand Only).

¶20

OA 316/2023

¶21

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with unattested deed of hypothecation and irrevocable GPA in favour of the applicant bank. m

¶23

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in compliance of the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

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

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, she failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 01.08.2024.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A-24 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶28

OA 316/2023

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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 the availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶37

OA 316/2023

¶38

¶39

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶40

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Since the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate of interest, penal interest/ default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest

¶42

is awarded at fixed rate.

¶43

In the result, OA.No.316/2023, stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶45

sum of Rs. 81,36,683.70/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three and Paise Seventy Only) with further interest @ 11.75% p.a. (Simple),from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & 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 proceedings against the defendants jointly, severally and personally and also proceeding against their assets

¶46

including hypothecated movables. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶47

OA 316/2023

¶48

¶49

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of

¶51

receipt of the order.

¶52

iii) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶53

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

iv) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of

¶55

with this Final Order.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶57

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

¶58

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶60

me in the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of June, 2025].

¶61

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Pramodh G S/o B Gurumallappa, Collection Manager, of

¶66

Applicant Bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Applicant’s Evidence

¶69

OA 316/2023

¶70

¶71

A2	List of documents
A3	Power of attorney
A4	GST certificate
A5	Letter of sole proprietorship
A6	Preliminary Credit facility CB 207132
A7	Credit facility application dated 27.02.2018 along with unattested deed of hypothecation and irrevocable GPA
A8	Key Fact statement and most important information
A9	Preliminary credit facility CB 317665
A10	Credit facility application dated 17.03.2020 along with unattested deed of hypothecation and irrevocable GPA
A11	Key fact statement and most important information
A12	Preliminary credit facility CB999379606
A13	Sanction letter dated 27.08.2020
A14 to A16	Loan recall notice and service endorsement
A17	Loan account statement for LQBNG00038402920
A18	Loan account statement for LQBNG00041622385
A19	Loan account statement for UQBNG00041985493
A20	Foreclosure Statement LQBN00038402920
A21	Foreclosure Statement LQBN00041622385
A22	Foreclosure statement UQBNG00041985493
A23	Statement
A24	Certificate under Section 2-A of the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. PNB Enterprises a Proprietoryship Concern Rep by Its Prop Smt. Netravathi.S.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. PNB Enterprises a Proprietoryship Concern Rep by Its Prop Smt. Netravathi.S.K

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

Formost Center versus Hdfc Ltd.

M/s Md Kaif Poultry Feed versus Indian Bank

Smt Yasmeen versus Icici Bank Limited

Maheswari a versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

Canara Bank versus Smt. Laxmibai