Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Luxus Carz

DRT23 Jun 2025OA/572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application for a Recovery Certificate against loan defaulting partners as the defendants were absent. The court directed recovery of the principal, interest, and costs, while declining the advocate commissioner fee due to non-execution of the warrant.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for aggregate sum of Rs. 2,37,79,752.15 with interest at 13.51% p.a.; Advocate commissioner fee of Rs. 10,000 disallowed.

Icici Bank Limited versus Luxus Carz — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 23^rd Day of June, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.572/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, Having zonal office at 4/10, Mythree tower, Bommanahalli, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru -560068.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Luxus Carz,

¶9

A registered partnership firm having its office at: No. G-05, ND Sunspurge Apartments, 12^th Main, 6^th Cross, HSR Layout, 5^th Sector, Bangalore -560102.

¶10

Mekala Paramasivam, D/o. Paramasiva, Residing at No. G-05, ND Sunspurge Apartments, 12^th Main, 6^th Cross, HSR Layout, 5^th Sector, Bangalore -560102.

¶11

Ramya Srihari, D/o. M. N. Reddy Raghavan, Residing at No.94, 2^nd Main, Annapoorneshwari Layout,

¶12

OA 572/2022

¶13

¶14

Chunchugatta, Bangalore -560062.

¶15

...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Vidhii Partners Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed

¶20

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 2,37,79,752.15/(Rupees two crore thirty-seven lakh seventy-nine thousand seven hundred fifty-two and paisa fifteen only only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendant No.2 and 3 are the partners of the 1^st Defendant which availed 11 Commercial Vehicle Loans and 6 Auto Loans. The details of the said credit

¶22

facilities are as follows:

¶23

Sl.
No.	Type of Loan	Loan Account Number	Loan amount	Instalment Amounts
1	Auto	LABNG00037602059	Rs.9,81,988/-	Rs.15,859/-
2	Commercial	LVBNG00037637057	Rs.12,83,360/-	Rs.22,144/-

¶24

OA 572/2022

¶25

¶26

	Vehicle
3	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00037637061	Rs.12,82,770/-	Rs.22,130/-
4	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00037637063	Rs.12,55,713/-	Rs.21,745/-
5	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00036737076	Rs.12,55,713/-	Rs.21,745/-
6	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00037637078	Rs.12,82,770/-	Rs.22,130/-
7	Auto	LABNG00039500064	Rs.10,29,801	Rs.19,850/-
8	Auto	LABNG00039500130	Rs.09,90,952/-	Rs.19,224/-
9	Auto	LABNG00039500139	Rs.10,28,720/-	Rs.19,825/-
10	Auto	LABNG00039500184	Rs.09,76,707/-	Rs.19,148/-
11	Auto	LABNG00039499992	Rs.09,76,707/-	Rs.19,148/-
12	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00041007924	Rs.15,62,047	Rs.26,538/-
13	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00041007927	Rs.15,62,047/-	Rs.26,538/-
14	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00041007929	Rs.15,62,637/-	Rs.26,538/-
15	Commercial	LVBNG00041007934	Rs.15,62,637/-	Rs.27,288/-

¶27

OA 572/2022

¶28

¶29

	Vehicle
16	Commercial Vehicle	LVBNG00041009676	Rs.15,60,589/-	Rs.27,250/-
17	Commercial Vehicle	UVBNG00041900997	Rs.31,63,000/-	Rs.21,131/-

¶30

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above credit facilities, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents including the hypothecation of vehicle as security.

¶31

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶32

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.

¶33

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear and hence were set exparte.

¶34

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed

¶35

OA 572/2022

¶36

¶37

Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-108, got the same marked in evidence.

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶39

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶40

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

¶41

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application remains

¶44

unrebutted as Defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, including the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶45

OA 572/2022

¶46

¶47

11. Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to

¶48

the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶49

During the pending of the OA, the applicant filed an IA (IA No. 1208/2022) along with the OA, for appointment of Advocate commissioner to seize the Vehicle of Defendants which is hypothecated to applicant and the IA was allowed and Mr. D. R. Joshi appointed as advocate commissioner to take the custody of the said vehicle, according one commissioner warrant also issued on 02.03.2023. But the applicant failed to get warrant executed for reasons best known for these and hence the defendants did not have any liability to pay commission fee to the applicant bank and the Applicant bank is not entitled to realize the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendants.

¶50

Taking into consideration the fact that the credit facilities are

¶51

availed by Defendants for vehicle loans, this Tribunal in view, that the rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced. However, as

¶52

the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate

¶53

and also by applying default interest, the prayer for monthly rest is declined.

¶54

OA 572/2022

¶55

¶56

In the result, OA.No.572/2022, is allowed,

¶57

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶58

Rs. 2,37,79,752.15 (Rupees two crore thirty seven lakh seventy

¶59

nine thousand seven hundred fifty two and paisa fifteen only) with pendente lite and future interest of 13.51% p.a. (simple) from the

¶60

date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally, personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and

¶61

allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants jointly severally and personally against the defendant

¶62

no.2 & 3 and also by proceeding against the defendants assets including the schedule movable properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶63

ii) The Defendants are not entitled to pay the commission fee

¶64

of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

¶65

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for

¶66

which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. It is made clear that the remuneration

¶67

allowed by the to advocate commission cannot be included in the cost as the same disallowed.

¶68

OA 572/2022

¶69

¶70

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶71

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶72

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in

¶73

terms of this final order.

¶74

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶75

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶76

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶77

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PY), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23^rd Day of June, 2025].

¶78

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶79

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶80

ANNEXURES

¶81

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶82

AW-1: Sri. Pramodh G, Collection Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶83

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶84

Exhibits are appended in this final order

¶85

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Luxus Carz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Luxus Carz

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Punabhai

Punjab National Bank versus Shantubhai

Bank of Baroda versus Dholariya Arvindbhai Shamjibhai and Others

M D Engandiyur Farmers Service Co. Bank Ltd. versus South Indian Bank

Anita Rani versus M/S Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus Surabhi