Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Ms Vap Infosolutions

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/85/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application, holding that defendants failed to repay a personal loan. The court directed payment of dues with interest and authorized the sale of hypothecated and personal assets to recover the amount.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.53,30,161.54 plus 12% interest and costs; sale of hypothecated and personal assets to recover dues; issuance of Recovery Certificate; injunction against dealing with properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Vap Infosolutions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶4

a proceeding			Officeaction taken with date
O.A. No.85/2025 26.09.2025	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separ attachedin06sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribu website.	and ately nal’s
	(Dictated) [ (PravasKumar PresidingOffic (MK)	©P SIngh) er

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶6

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶7

Case No. Original Application No.85 of 2025

¶8

Dated: 26.09.2025

¶9

	ICICI Bank Ltd., having Branch atTC– 13, V-IV, Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 226010.	........Applicant-bank
	Versus
1.	M/s VAP Infosolutions, Through its Proprietor Mrs. Vartika Sharma, Address – HouseNo.R- 85, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 226010. Also at:- 3/315, Vishwas Khand (NearSatya Hospital), Gomti Nagar,Lucknow–226010.
2.	Vartika Sharma W/o Shri Amit Sharma,R/o 3/315,VishwasKhand(Near SatyaHospital), Gomti Nagar,Lucknow–226010.
3.	Amit Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, R/o – 3/315, Vishwas I<hand (NearSatya Hospital), Gomti Nagar,Lucknow–226010.	......Defendants

¶10

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: Present

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under

¶13

Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.53,30,161.54/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs,

¶14

Thirty Thousand, One Hundred Sixty One and Paisa Fifty Four Only) together

¶15

with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶16

O.A. No.85 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is a borrower and the defendant no.2 & 3 is the co-borrower. The defendants approached the Applicant-bank for grant of Personal Loan of Rs.45.00 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 28.04.2022 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2) to this Original Application.

¶19

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank on 28.04.2022 (Exhibit No.A-3) to this Original Application.

¶20

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶21

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/firm was classified as NPA on 02.12.2022 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-4), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Recall Notice dated 03.04.2023 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-5), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶22

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.53,30,161.54/- (Rupees Fifty Three

¶23

Lacs, Thirty Thousand, One Hundred Sixty One and Paisa Fifty Four Only) including interest upto 16.12.2024, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they

¶24

O.A. No.85 of 2025

¶25

did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-6 to Exhibit No.A-8) to this Original Application.

¶26

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 28.04.2022 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the ApplicantTbank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when Recall Notice dated 03.04.2023 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶27

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post, all the defendants through counsel have appeared before this Tribunal, but no written statement has been filed within statutory period hence, the opportunity to file the written statement is closed. The case is proceeded against the defendants.

¶28

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶29

In support of the case Modh. Nadeem Khan, Manager of the

¶30

Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶31

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-8, it is proved that defendants had

¶32

r N,Y

¶33

O.A. No.85 of 2025

¶34

availed the credit facilities 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 show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶35

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶36

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum w.e.f. 17.12.2024 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent- lite and future interest is granted @12% per annum reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶37

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of hypothecation in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as proceeded against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint

¶38

O.A. No.85 of 2025

¶39

¶40

and several hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be

¶41

sold.

¶42

It is, therefore , ordered

¶43

(i) That the Original Application No.85 of 2025 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.53,30,161.54/(Rupees Fifty Three Lacs, Thirty Thousand, One Hundred Sixty One and Paisa Fifty Four Only) along with the interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21.11.2025 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds as proceeded against the defendants.

¶44

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

¶45

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise 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 assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶46

(iv) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing

O.A. No.85 of 2025

with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the Applicant-bank.

¶51

(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 19.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶52

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶53

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶54

Dated: 26.09.2025

¶55

:. -\t' $9"

¶56

(Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer

¶57

(MK)

Icici Bank Limited v. Ms Vap Infosolutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Ms Vap Infosolutions

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Ms Revel Industries

Canara Bank versus Mr Ayodhya Prasad

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Seema Jain

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Marg Darshak Development Projects and Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Isha Pharma and Surgicals

Mohd Rihan versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited