Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Krishna Kailash Gawande

DRT21 Nov 2025OA/515/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of a credit loan facility and term loan from two defendants who failed to repay dues, proceeding ex-parte due to their absence. The court fixed future interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; defendants ordered to pay Rs. 27,61,401/- plus future interest at 9% p.a. jointly and severally; recovery certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Krishna Kailash Gawande — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 10.10.2022 Registered on: 25.11.2022 Decided on: 21.11.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 01 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.515/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 27,61,401/-

¶4

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶5

A Registered Company, Having its Registered Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 And having one of its Branch Office at ICICI Bank Ltd, Raghuvir Complex, Opp. District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad. Through: it’s

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Power Of Attorney Holder Shri. Girish S/o.

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 1 of 9

[Ambadas]

Shrikrishnarao Naik, Age: 47 Years, Occ:

¶12

Service, R/o: C/o. ICICI Bank Ltd, Raghuvir Complex, Opp. District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad.

¶13

Versus

¶14

Krishna S/o. Kailash Gawande,

¶15

… Defendant's

¶16

Age: 36 Years, Occ. : Agri/Business,

¶17

R/o. At Tembhapuri, Gangapur,

¶18

Aurangabad- 431133.

¶19

Mob No: 9822636460/ 9822606192.

¶20

Babasaheb S/o. Shivaji Mhaske,

¶21

Age: 32 Years, Occ. : Business,

¶22

R/o. At Murshidabad, Shendurwada,

¶23

Tq. Gangapur, Aurangabad- 431133.

Mob No: 9689392439.

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 2 of 9

[Ambadas]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Mr. Umesh N. Shete - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Delivered on (21.11.2025)

¶32

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs. 27,61,401 (Rs. Twenty Seven Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred and One Only) together with interest @11.52% on Credit Loan facility from 14.06.2022 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants.

¶33

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶34

That the Defendants approached the Applicant Bank and requested for the sanction of a Credit Loan Facility. Upon considering the Defendant’s representation, request and financial needs, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Credit loan Facility of Rs.26,18,605/- (Rs. Twenty Six Lakhs, Eighteen

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 3 of 9

[Ambadas]

Thousand, Six Hundred and Five Only) for Purchase of Vehicle Tata LPK 2518 vide sanction letter dated 05.08.2020 and Term

¶39

Loan of Rs.4,11,574/- (Rs. Four Lakhs, Eleven Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Four Only) for subject to the execution of loan agreement and other necessary documents on dated 05.08.2020 executed by Defendants on certain terms & conditions.

¶40

The agreed rate of Fixed interest for the Credit loan facility was Fixed @11.52% p.a. and Term Loan facility was @9.26% p.a. with Floating rests.

¶41

In order to secure the aforesaid Credit Loan facility, the Defendants executed loan documents in favour of the applicant bank namely sanction letter, demand promissory note, request letter, hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking etc.

¶42

The applicant bank contended that to secure the Credit Loan facility, the Defendants have executed Unattested Deed of Hypothecation dated 22.10.2018 and Irrevocable Power of

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 4 of 9

[Ambadas]

Attorney dated 22.10.2018 of the following

¶47

property/hypothecation in favour of the applicant bank:

¶48

Description of Hypothecated Assets:-

¶49

Tata LPS 4018 registered with the Registering

¶50

Authority With Registration bearing No. MH-20-EG-8566

¶51

an Endorsement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶52

The applicant Bank further contended that the Defendants have failed to keep their promises and commitments agreed by them with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The Defendants failed to operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed rate of interest as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Thereafter the applicant bank repeatedly made demand of loan amount and called upon the Defendants to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the Defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the Defendants became irregular and classified as

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 5 of 9

[Ambadas]

NPA 21.06.2021. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued legal notice to the Defendants through their Advocate on 30.07.2021. Despite service of Notice, the Defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶57

Despite Service of summons, the defendants did not choose to enter appearance either personally or through their Advocate. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 16.04.2024.

¶58

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-5 of Mr. Girish S/o Shrikrishnarao Naik, Officer of the applicant bank and has produced on record the loan transaction documents as per Exh. AW-1/2 to AW-1/17 along-with List of documents Exh.6 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank. The applicant bank has also filed original loan documents as Exh. AW-1/2 to AW-1/15 along-with Affidavit on Behalf of Applicant Bank as Exh.11 of Mr. Girish S/o Shrikrishnarao Naik.

¶59

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 6 of 9

[Ambadas]

applicant Bank.

Since the Defendants failed to filed written statement and did not contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶65

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @11.52%, p.a. with monthly rests on loan from 14.06.2022 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that awarding future interest at @9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable.

¶66

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶67

(A)

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(A) Original Application No. 515/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶70

(B) The Defendants shall pay Jointly and Severally to the

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 7 of 9

[Ambadas]

Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 27,61,401/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred and One Only) along-with future interest at @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 10.10.2022, till full payment/ realization of the said amount.

¶75

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank vide document Exh.AW-1/5 and Exh.AW-1/6 in list of Documents Exh.6.

¶76

Description of Hypothecation :-

¶77

Tata LPS 4018 registered with the Registering Authority With Registration bearing No. MH-20-EG-8566 an Endorsement of Hypothecation

¶78

in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶79

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated

¶80

Vehicles/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

(OA No.515-2022)

Page 8 of 9

[Ambadas]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶85

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and Defendants.

¶86

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

Place : Aurangabad Date : 21.11.2025

¶89

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶90

(OA No.515-2022)

¶91

Page 9 of 9

¶92

[Ambadas]

Icici Bank Limited v. Krishna Kailash Gawande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Krishna Kailash Gawande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Pravin Sudhakar Satonkar

Canara Bank versus Laxman Shankar Sangale

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus M/S. Yerte Dal Udyog

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Vishal Shaligram Dabhade

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vatsala Electricals

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Bramhi Print and Pack