Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Meenakshi Earth Movers

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an exparte hearing under Section 19 RDB Act 1993, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application to issue a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 24,49,288.90 plus interest against defaulting borrowers who failed to repay a loan for construction equipment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 24,49,288.90 plus 10.51% p.a. interest from filing date, recoverable against schedule and personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri Meenakshi Earth Movers — Execution and Attachment | 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

¶4

OA. No.356/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

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

¶7

Bomannahalli Branch office at ICICI Bank Ltd, 4/10, Mythree Tower, Bommanahalli, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-68, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney Sri. Pramodh G … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Meenakshi Earth Movers

¶10

A Proprietorship concern No.69, Govindappa Layout, Chikkanagamangala Village, Huskur Post, Sarjapura Hobli, Bangalore – 560099 Rep. by its Prop Sri. Prabhakaran

¶11

Sri. Prabhakaran K

¶12

No.69, Govindappa Layout, Chikkanagamangala Village, Huskur Post, Sarjapura Hobli, Bangalore – 560099

¶13

Smt. Devi

¶14

Wife of Sri. Prabhakaran K No.69, Govindappa Layout, Chikkanagamangala Village, Huskur Post, Sarjapura Hobli, Bangalore – 560099

OA. No. 356/2023

4. C.G. Vijay

Son of Chinnaraj Pandiyappan Aged about 31 years No.86/1, 2^nd Cross, Near Rajarajeshwari Temple, Bengaluru South, Karnataka-560010 ...DEFENDANTS

¶19

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶20

Applicant : M/s. Vidhii Partners Defendants : Exparte

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

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.24,49,288.90 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Eight and Ninety Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶23

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants Rs.35,39,142/- for purchasing the Construction Equipment i.e. TATA HITACHI ZX 140..

¶24

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 hypothecation over the Schedule.

¶25

OA. No. 356/2023

¶26

¶27

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶28

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.

¶29

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 17.10.2024.

¶30

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

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.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶33

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

¶34

OA. No. 356/2023

¶35

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶39

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

¶40

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate

¶41

of interest, penal interest/default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at fixed rate.

¶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. 356/2023

¶44

¶45

In the result, OA.No.356/2023 stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶47

of Rs.24,49,288.90 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Eight and Ninety Paise only) with further interest of 10.51% 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. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶51

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

¶52

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

OA. No. 356/2023

¶54

¶55

14. 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	Power of attorney
A2	Preliminary credit facility application form bearing CB 000317715
A3	Credit facility application form dated 30.01.2020 along with an unattested deed of hypothecation
	and irrevocable general power of attorney
A4	Deed of guarantee
A5	Key fact statement
A6	Loan recall notice
A7 & A8	Ledger extracts and foreclosure statement

¶66

OA. No. 356/2023

¶67

¶68

	The certificate under section 2-A of the amended
A9	Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 as prescribed in schedule III of the Information Technology Act,
	2000

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Meenakshi Earth Movers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri Meenakshi Earth Movers

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