Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Arshad Abbas

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Application by ICICI Bank for recovery of dues Rs.55,02,202.64 from borrower and co-borrower who defaulted on a housing loan. Tribunal allowed the application directing payment within two months and authorization to sell properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.55,02,202.64 plus pendent-lites and future interest @12% p.a., power to sell mortgaged and personal assets, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Arshad Abbas — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Date oforderor proceedin!	Order withsignatureofcourt		Officeaction takenwithdate
O.A.No.438/2023 17.12.2025	Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin06 shee Order be uploaded on Tribunal’swebsite.	and ts. the
	(PravasKumari PresidingOffi	II]g'h) cer

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Case No. Original Application No.438 of 2023

¶6

Dated: 17. 12.2025

¶7

IC,ICI Bank, having Branch at Shalimar Tower, 31/54, M.G. Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001 .

¶8

. . . . .Applicant Bank

¶9

Versus

¶10

Arshad Abbas, S/o Mr. Sai Shab Alam, R/o 396/105, Pumpy House, Kashmiri Mohalla, Lucknow-226003.

¶11

Sahab Alam, S/o Mr. Shabbir Hussain, R/o 396/105, Pumpy House, Kashmiri Mohalla, Lucknow-226003.

¶12

. . . . . . . Defendants

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the defendants: Mr. M.K. Sherwani, Advocate.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.55,02,202.64/(Rupees Fifty Five Lac, Two Thousand, Two Hundred Two and Paisa Sixty Four Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶16

The brief facts of case: -The defendant no.1 is borrower and the defendant no.2 is co-borrower. The defendants vide loan application dated approached the applicant-bank for grant of

O.A. No.438 of 2023

Housing Loan of Rs.42.90 lac, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant-bank vide sanction letter dated 28.8.2018 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No.A-2 & Exhibit No.A-3) to this original application.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid Credit facility, the defendants had executed and signed Facility Agreement in favour of the applicant-bank on 25.8.2018 (Exhibit No.A-4) to this original application.

¶22

Further, in order to secure the repayment of bank dues, the defendant no.2 had created mortgage of his immovable property i.e. House No.366/056/61, Plot No.61, Khasra No.1-190, WardHaidergani, Kishore Gani, Lucknow-226018, UP as detailed in the petition in favour of the bank (ExhibitNo. A-5 to this original application.

¶23

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank had opened a loan account in the name of defendant no.1 in order to maintain the credit facility.

¶24

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1 was classified as NPA on 31.01.2021 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicantbank issued Recall Notice dated 20.3.2021 (Exhibit No. A-6), but, the defendants stated no-response and failed to repay the same and the loan account of the defendant no.1 is still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

_r/-

O.A. No.438 of 2023

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.55,02,202.64/(Rupees Fifty Five Lac, Two Thousand, Two Hundred Two and Paisa Sixty Four Only) including interest upto 20.3.2023 were lying due for payment, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (Exhibit No.A-7 to Exhibit No.A-9) to this original application.

¶29

8, The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 28.8.2018 when the abovementioned credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on 20.3.2021 when the applicant-bank had issued recall notice recalling the defendants to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendants failed to pay the same.

¶30

The summons was served upon the defendants through registered post. The defendants appeared before this Tribunal to contest the case, but, failed to file WS within statutory period and tried to file WS after one year, which could not be taken on record.

¶31

The only point of consideration before this Tribunal in as to whether the bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶32

In support of the case Mr. Shyam Singh, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶33

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibit marked as (Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-9 to this original

(

O.A. No.438 of 2023

application),it stands proved that the defendants had availed the credit facility from the applicant bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicant Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly establishes that defendants had utilized the above loan facility as granted to them. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendants in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries is relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank’s claim is within limitation against the defendants, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the dues.

¶39

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the hypothecated property as well as personal properties of the defendants

¶40

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @24.00% per annum in the above Loan Account together with pendent-lite and future interest on contractual rate till the actual date of its realization and costs. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent-lite and future interest is granted @12.00% per annum in the above loan account with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O. A. till the date of realization with costs

¶41

O. A. No.438 of 2023

¶42

¶43

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendants with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and the mortgage property as well as the personal properties are liable to be sold

¶44

It is, therefore, ordered:-

¶45

(i) That the Original Application No.438 of 2023 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.55,02,202.64/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac, Two Thousand, Two Hundred Two and Paisa Sixty Four Only) together with future and pendent lite interest @12.00% per annum in all the above loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 24.4.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed against the defendants.

¶46

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶47

(iii) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property (if not sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of mortgage property or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the

O.A. No.438 of 2023

balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants. The applicant bank shall provide details of the statement of account.

¶52

(iv) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant bank.

¶53

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 17.02.2026 before DRT, Lucknow.

¶54

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶55

Dated: 17.12.2025

¶56

(Pravas Kuma+Jigh) Presiding Officer

¶57

(Veeresh)

Icici Bank Limited v. Arshad Abbas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Arshad Abbas

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

Smt Indu Nagar versus Canara Bank

Indian Bank versus M/s S S Fish Center

Ms Tulsi Trading Company versus Yes Bank

Surya Bhan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited

M S Jyoti Enviro Tech Pvt. Ltd. versus M S Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Mohd Shahid versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.