Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Vishnu Prasad

DRT12 Feb 2025OA/836/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from four farmers. The court ordered payment of the claim amount, interest, and costs, while restraining the defendants from transferring properties and directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order directed payment of Rs. 32,13,065.52 plus interest, issued a Recovery Certificate, and restrained defendants from transferring assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Vishnu Prasad — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Applicotion No.^- 836/23

¶5

lClCl Bank Ltd., lClCl Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circte, Otd Padra Road, Vadodara 390007

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) Vishnu Prasad Jat, S/o Shri Ram Narayan Jat

¶9

1. Shri Ram Narayan Jat, S/o Shri Ram Singh Jat

¶10

1. Smt. Durga Prasad Jat, W/o Ram Narayan Jat

¶11

1. Smt. Sumitra Bai Jat, W/o Shiv Narayan Jat

¶12

(Att at Makan No.'124, Ward No'-8, PO-Attsiriya, Tehsit-KataPiPat, Gram-Nipanya Khurd, Shajapur, M.P.^465333) Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Sanjeev^{Dubey, Advocate}

¶14

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Dated : 12th FebruarY, 2025)

¶17

The Appticant-Bank has fited^{the present Origina[ Apptication} u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and^{BankruptcyAct on 05107/23against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs.^{32,13,065'52(Rupees Thirty Two Lakh,} Thirteen Thousand Sixty Five^{and Paisa Fifty Two only) atong with interest} and other reliefs as stated.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are^{that on the request of} Defendant No.-1 and Defendant^{No.-2to 4, the AppticantBank sanctioned} Kisan Credit Card^(KCC) Limit^{of Rs. 25'11Lakhwitha maximum permissible} KCC Limit upto Rs. 36,76,3001- on^{21 112117 and in consideration of the} same the Defendants in addition^{to execution of loan documents have atso} created charge under the^provisions of^{M.P. KrishiUdhar PravartanTatha} Prakriyan Upbandh^(Bank) Adhiniyam^{1977 over the immovabte properties,} t.e.,

¶19

¶20

oA836123

¶21

i) Agricutture Land bearing Survey No.'246^{area 0.021 hect.; 251,} 252 area 0. 543 hect. ; 27 6 / 1 area'1.327^hect. ;^{284 I 1 area 1.097 hect,; 284 /2} area 0.888 hect.; 295/1 area^{0.502 hecl.;29512area 0.094 hect.;296 area} 0.094 hect.; 297/1 area 0.115 hect.; 297/2 area^{0.010 hect.;298 area0.167} hect.; 301 area 0.125 hect.; 302 area 0.115 hect.; 305,^{307 area 0.094hect.;} 306 area 0.052 hect.; 308 area 0.042^{hect.; 488/1l1area0.837 hect.; 488/2} area 0.052 hect.; 488/3 area 0.073 hect.; 489/'1 area^{0.606 hect.;48912/1} area 0.157 hect.; tota[ 7.041 hectare, situated at Viltage-Nipaniya^Khrud,PC No.-43, Tehsit-Katapipat, Distt.-Shajapur (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.4;

¶22

ii) Agricutture Land bearing Survey No.-247 area 0.502 hect.; 248 area 0.125 hect.; 285 area 0.397 hect.; 286 area 0.178 hect.; 290/2 area 0.679 hect.; 791 17 area 0.543 hect.; 300 area 0.637 hect, 303 area 0.042 hect.; Total 3.103 hectare, situated at Viltage-Nipaniya Khrud, PC No.-43, Tehsil-Kalapipat, Distt.-Shajapur (M.P.); belonging to Defendant No.-3;

¶23

iii) Agricu[ture Land bearing Survey No.-297/573 area 0.461 hect.; 487/2/1 area 2.654 hect.; total 3.115 hectare, situated at Vittage-Nipaniya Khrud, PC No.-43, Tehsi[-Katapipat, Distt.-Shajapur (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-1;

¶24

iv) Agriculture Land bearing Survey No.-281 area 1.348 hect.; 299 area 0.241 hect.; 304 area 0.115 hect.; total 1.704 hectare, situated at Vittage-Nipaniya Khrud, PC No.-43, Tehsit-Kalapipat, Distt.-Shajapur (M.P.); belonging to Defendant No.^-2.

¶25

The Defendants availed the credit facitity but faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Recatl Notice on 11101 /23 by the Appticant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex A.1 to A-'10 which were proved by Shri Vineet Bhasin, Manager.

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10/07 124. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiable to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its app[ication has ctaimed interest @11.50%^p.a. with monthty rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @11.50% p.a. simpte pendentelite and future titl realization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are is liable to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personat properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶27

¶28

oA 836/23

¶29

The Orig'inal Apptication is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶30

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severatly Rs. 32,13,065.52 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh, Thirteen Thousand Sixty Five and Paisa Fifty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,05107 123, with costs titl its reatization.

¶31

ii) The AppLicant Bank is entitted to setl the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/ assets without first paying the claim of the Appticant^Bank.

¶32

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶33

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 12th Day of February,7075.

¶34

?>
\7'
m as P Atet)
Presidin Officer

Icici Bank Limited v. Vishnu Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Vishnu Prasad

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

Union Bank of India versus Praveen Singh Baghel

Central Bank of India versus Rajesh Babu

Bank of India versus Dhannu Pariwale

Union Bank of India versus Tejpal Singh Rana

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vahab Ali

Idbi Bank versus Gurmeet