Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Kallel Sab Khaja Miya

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by ICICI Bank Limited against three defendants who defaulted on a Kisan Credit Card. Evidence was accepted ex-parte due to non-appearance. The court awarded the principal amount with reduced simple interest at 8% p.a., permitting recovery from schedule properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.20,50,310/- with interest at 8% p.a. (simple) against defendants and recovery of deficiency from other assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Kallel Sab Khaja Miya — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.350/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ICICI BANK LIMITED, Having its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 and also having Its asset branch office at Sri. Laxmi Complex, Near Satkar Hotel Main road, Sindhanur, Karnataka-584128 Rep. by its Debt Manager & POA Holder Mr. Mubarak Pasha …

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Kallel Sab Khaja Miya S/o. Mr. Khaja Miyya Aged about 45 years, No.20, Meranai Village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur-584124

¶11

Mrs. Syeda Bibi W/o. Mr. Khaja Miyya Aged about 62 years, No.20, Meranai Village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur-584124

¶12

Mr. Hasan Miyya S/o. Mr. Khaja Miyya Aged about 39 years, No.20, Meranai Village,

¶13

OA. No. 350/2022

¶14

¶15

Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur-584124 ...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : M/s. SA Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.20,50,310/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Kisan Credit Card with limit of Rs.21,96,100/- vide its sanction letter dated 11.12.2015.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule properties.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and

¶23

OA. No. 350/2022

¶24

¶25

regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 16.11.2022.

¶28

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A10 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered 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

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

OA. No. 350/2022

¶35

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

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, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due is also

¶38

proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶40

was availed for agriculture purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00%

¶41

(simple).

¶42

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.

¶43

OA. No. 350/2022

¶44

¶45

In the result, OA.No.350/2022 stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.20,50,310/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendant, 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 schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶47

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover

¶48

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and other their assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

OA. No. 350/2022

¶54

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶56

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

¶57

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of June 2025].

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, BENGALURU

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Sri. Pramodh G, Collection Manager of the applicant bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Evidence Affidavit
A2	List of documents
A3	Farmer finance facilities-credit facility application form dated 02.11.2015
A4	Sanction letter dated 11.12.2015
A5	Hypothecation deed dated 11.12.2015
A6	Indenture of Mortgage dated 15.12.2015
A7	Legal notice dated 19.06.2021
A8	Postal receipts
A9	Indiapost track consignment
A10	Statement of account

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

Sd/-

Icici Bank Limited v. Kallel Sab Khaja Miya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Kallel Sab Khaja Miya

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