Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sevendra Sharma

DRT23 Dec 2025OA/317/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.21.24 lacs from borrowers and a guarantor. The court reduced the interest rate to 12% citing global economic conditions. The order was passed ex-parte as defendants did not appear.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.21,24,167.78 with 12% interest from 11.10.2022 within 30 days. Recovery from sale of hypothecated JCB vehicles if not paid.

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

¶1

O.A NO.317 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. 317 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd. 2nd Floor, Videocon Tower Block-El, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh.Sevendra Sharma s/o Brahma Dev Sharma H.No.-32, Main Dadri Road Dwarkadish Mandir, Bhangel Noida Sadarpur, G.B.Nagar, Noida-201304

¶8

Sh.Brahma Dev Sharma s/o Chapar H.No.-32, Main Dadri Road Dwarkadish Mandir, Bhangel Noida Sadarpur, G.B.Nagar, Noida-201304

¶9

Mr. Pavit s/o Mr. Dheeraj Singh Kaimala Chakrasenpur, G.B.Nagar, Noida, U.P-201304 Defendants

¶10

Present: Mr. B.K. Jha, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶11

Date of Reserve: 04.12.2025

¶12

Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 30.03.2023 through Mr. Rajat Chandra, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of

¶15

0.A NO.317 of 2023

¶16

Rs.21,24,167.78 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven and paisa Seventy Eight only) as on 11.10.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum from 11.10.2022 till the date of realization and costs.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 and 2, the applicant bank sanctioned Construction Equipment Loan for a sum of Rs.19,02,295/(Rupees Nineteen Lacs Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five only) on 29.03.2019, which was repayable in 54 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.49,655/- each starting from 07.05.2019 and another loan for Rs.21,65,175/- on 29.10.2019 to be repayable in 55 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.56,892/- each for purchase of Two Construction Equipments namely `JCB 3DX' having registration no.UP16GT6258 & UP16GT0522. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the vehicles loans facilities availed by defendant no.1 & 2.

¶18

That in order to avail both loan facilities, the defendant no.1 and 2 submitted loan applications and executed Credit Facility Agreement, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation and Irrevocable Power of Attorney along with defendant no.3 executed Deed of Guarantee in favour of the applicant bank on 29.03.2019 and 24.10.2019.

¶19

In order to secure the construction equipment loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated both the Construction Equipments namely JCB 3DX having registration no.UP16GT6258 and UP16GT0522 towards the applicant bank.

¶20

O.A NO.317 of 2023

¶21

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank issued loan recall notice dated 14.09.2022 but neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

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 11.04.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Rajat Chandra, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, PAN card, Aadhar Card, Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed of Guarantee, Loan Disbursement Memo, Construction Equipment Registration numbers, Loan Recall notice, Foreclosure Letter, Statement of accounts, Repayment Schedules, Certificates u/s 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act, Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/22.

¶24

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.

¶25

0.A NO.317 of 2023

¶26

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.21,24,167.78 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven and paisa Seventy Eight only) as on 11.10.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per ann.= with monthly rests from 11.10.2022 and costs till the realization of the its dues, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial equipments namely JCB 3DX having

¶31

Sof

¶32

0.A NO.317 of 2023

¶33

Registration no.UP16GT6258 and UP16GT0522. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶34

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.02.2026.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 23.12.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Sevendra Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sevendra Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms. Indu Soni

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Parminder Singh

Canara Bank versus Iqbal Singh

Srt Subrata Mahanta and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Shubh Foods Products Co.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Skyla Fashion