Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Raja Ram Mishra

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Delhi allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of personal loan dues. The respondent defendant was absent, and the case went ex-parte on evidence. The court directed payment of the principal sum, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.21,62,410.88 with 11% interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued and executed if not paid.

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.438 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.438 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶6

Videocon Tower Rani Jhansi Road, Block El Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110055

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Raja Ram Mishra sio Ghanshyam Mishra H.No.88, Aashram Road Near Ambuja Store, Budhpur 20 point Colony, Bodhpur, Bijapur Alipur North West Delhi-110036

¶10

Also at:

¶11

FIEM Industries Ltd. Plot no.1915, Rai Industrial Estate Sonepat, Haryana-131029 Defendant

¶12

Present: Sh.Rajiv Sagar, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Reserve: 31.10.2025

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 28.03.2022 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Sh.Nitesh Vashisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,62,410.88 (Rupees

sd-

O.A. No.438 of 2023

Twenty One Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Ten and paisa Eighty Eight only) as on 19.12.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest ©11% per annum from 20.12.2022 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Personal Loan facility for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-two lacs Fifty Thousand only) on 18.12.2019 which was to be repayable in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.48,877/- ©11.00% interest per annum.

¶22

In order to avail the personal loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application dated 09.12.2019 and executed Credit Facility Application Form, Personal Loan Agreement and Loan Disbursement Memo on 18.12.2019 with the applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to repay the contractual dues / charges/ interest towards finance facility to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank terminated the agreement and issued notice dated 18.10.2022 to make the payment but defendant neglected, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 16.09.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶25

O.A. No.438 of 2023

¶26

before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Nitesh Vashisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Credit Application form along with KYC documents, Disbursement Memo, Loan Recall Notice, Postal Receipts, Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Statement of account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/8.

¶28

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 approved.

¶29

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.

¶30

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,62,410.88 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Ten and paisa Eighty Eight only) as on 19.12.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest

¶33

¶34

O.A. No.438 of 2023

¶35

@11% per annum with monthly rests from 20.12.2022 till the date of realization along with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶36

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

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 16.01.2026.

¶38

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

¶39

(GOVIND BALLABFARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.11.2025

¶41

Icici Bank Limited v. Raja Ram Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Raja Ram Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Meenu Arora