Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Krishna Enterprises

DRT21 Jun 2025OA/400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the absence of the defendants, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.35,52,421/- along with adjusted interest at 12% p.a. directed against the mortgaged vehicles and assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.35,52,421/- with 12% annual interest and costs; recovery via sale of hypothecated vehicles in case of default.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Krishna Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.400 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh O.A. No. 400 of 2023	Sharma
ICICI Bank Limited Plot no.7, Community Centre S.D. Tower, Sector-8, Rohini Delhi-110085	Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Krishna Enterprises (Borrower) Through its Proprietor Niranjan Singh Amru near Haveli Wale Amru (38), Baghola Palwal Haryana-1211021
Also at: DD-33, Shyam Nagar Colony Palwal, Near Shiv Mandir Haryana-1211021
2. Sh.Deshwati w/o Niranjan Singh (Guarantor) Amru Near Haveli Wale Amru (38), Baghola Palwal Haryana-1211021	Defendants
resent: Sh.Deepak Kaushik, Counsel for the appli Date of Institution: Date of Pronouncement: FINAL ORDER	cant bank 10.04.2023 21.06.2025

¶4

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 10.04.2023 through Ms. Alka Sharma, authorized •presentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶5

¶6

O.A. No.400 of 2023

¶7

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 a sum of Rs.35,52,421/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty One only) as on 03.04.2023 along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum with monthly rest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Two Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.57,75,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Seventy Five Thousand only) sanctioned on 28.11.2019 & disbursed on 30.11.2019 under Loan-cum-Hypothecation scheme which was to be repayable in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.75,403/- which was extended to 53 EMIs for purchase of two commercial vehicles namely LPK 2518/FULLY BUILT @10.77% interest per annum. The Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for vehicle loan sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1.

¶9

That in order to avail the Commercial Vehicle Loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Credit Facility Application along with Terms & Conditions of Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Deed of Guarantee with the applicant bank on 28.11.2019.

¶10

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants hypothecated both the commercial vehicles having registration number HR-73A-3894 & HR-73A-5818 in favour of applicant

¶11

¶12

O.A. No.400 of 2023

¶13

bank on 28.11.2019 and bank's charge is registered with RTO authority.

¶14

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. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and issued loan recall notices dated 17.06.2022 and 12.08.2022 to adjust the outstanding along with interest but defendants have failed to comply. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶15

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 29.10.2024, 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.

¶16

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1(OSR), Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form Ex.AW-1/2, Credit Facility Application Form Ex.AW-1/3, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/4, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/5, Deed of Guarantee Ex.AW-1/6, Sanction letter Ex.AW-1/7, Loan Disbursal Memos Ex.AW-1/7(Colly), Copy of Vehicle Registration 'Mark A', ID Proofs of Respondents 'Mark Recall Notices Ex.AW-1/8(Colly) and Postal Receipt 'Mark C',

Sq/— fi

O.A. Nc.400 of 2023

Certified Foreclosure Statements and Statement of Accounts along with Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 2A of Banker's Books Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/9 to Ex.AW-1/14.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

O.A. No.400 of 2023

ORDER

I, 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.35,52,421/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty One only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12% 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 Vehicles namely LPK 2518/FULLY BUILT having Registration Nos. HR-73A-3894 & HR-73A-5818. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶29

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

¶30

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 20.08.2025.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.06.2025

¶34

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Krishna Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Krishna Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus Naresh

Punjab National Bank versus Roshan S/O Rambhau Varhekar

Akila Bi versus the India Shelter Finance Corp Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Prime Foam Pvt.Ltd

Central Bank of India versus M/S Nandi Keshwar Traders

Canara Bank versus Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta