Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Jayesh Enterprises

DRT16 Sept 2025OA/93/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of a loan of Rs. 25,27,933/- along with interest charged against Jayesh Enterprises and individual guarantors who failed to repay credits sanctioned for a vehicle and ECLGS scheme. The judgment granted a security interest over the hypothecated Tata Ultra vehicle and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,27,933/- plus 9% p.a. simple interest; grant of security charge over hypothecated vehicle; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Jayesh Enterprises — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 14.12.2022 Registered on: 04.08.2023 Decided on: 16.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 09 02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 93/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 25,27,933/-

¶4

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶5

A Registered Company, Having its Registered Office

¶6

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 Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Girish S/o. Shrikrishanarao Naik Age; 47 years, Occ.; Service, R/o.: C/o. ICICI Bank Ltd. Raghuvir Complex, Opp. District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad.

… Applicant

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Jayesh Enterprises, Through its Proprietor, Umesh s/o. Rustamrao More Age: 37years, Occu.: Business, R/o.: South City Group Center, Plot No. 147, Waluj MIDC, Aurangabad-431001.

¶13

Umesh s/o. Rustamrao More Age: 37years, Occu.: Business, R/o.: South City Group Center, Plot No. 147, Waluj MIDC, Aurangabad-431001. And also R/o.: Sahakar Bank Colony, Near Railway Station, Old Jalna, Plot No. 86, Mrutunjay Niwas, Jalna 431203.

¶14

Kiran Vijayraj Jagtap @ More Age: 32 years, Occu.: Housewife, R/o.: South City Group Center, Plot No. 147, Waluj MIDC, Aurangabad-431001. And also R/o.: Sahakar Bank Colony, Near Railway Station, Old Jalna, Plot No. 86, Mrutunjay Niwas, Jalna 431203.

…Defendants

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Delivered on 16.09.2025

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶23

recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,27,933/- (Rupees Twenty Five lacs, Twenty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Three only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 14.12.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶24

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶25

The Applicant Bank submits that Defendant No. 1 approached the Applicant Bank with a request for sanction of a Cash Credit loan facility for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle. Upon due consideration of the said request and the financial requirements of Defendant, the Applicant Bank was pleased to sanction a loan facility of Rs. 16,97,535/- on certain terms and conditions. The

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

agreed rate of interest was @ 11.01% p.a. with monthly rests.

¶30

The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶31

The applicant bank further states that the defendant again approached the applicant bank seeking financial assistance in the way Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS). Upon due consideration of the said request and the financial requirements of Defendants, the Applicant Bank was pleased to sanction a loan facility of Rs. 3,31,633/- vide sanction letter dated 25.08.2020 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 9.25% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶32

¶33

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Bank. These included sanction letter, hypothecation deeds dated

¶38

30.11.2019 & 26.08.2020, sole proprietorship letter, letter of

¶39

undertaking etc. Additionally, defendant No. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee on 26.08.2020 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶40

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed hypothecation deeds on 30.11.2019 & 26.08.2020, thereby hypothecating

¶41

vehicle Tata Ultra 1518 5L/49 WB BS IV, Registration No.MH20-EL-4615.

¶42

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to keep their promise 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

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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 NPA on 31.01.2021. Therefore, on 25.01.2022 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶47

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through paper publication. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 20.05.2025.

¶48

¶49

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Girish S/o. Shrikrishna Naik, Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/16 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶54

Since the defendants failed to appear and 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.

¶55

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated vehicle of the borrower.

¶56

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.25% p.a. on outstanding amount at contractual rate of interest with monthly rests from the date of filing i.e. 14.12.2022 of this application till realization of the claim amount. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(A) Original Application No. 93/2023 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 25,27,933/- (Rupees Twenty Five lacs, Twenty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Three only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14.12.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶63

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecated vehicle vehicle Tata Ultra 1518 5L/49 WB BS IV, Registration No.MH-20-EL-4615 vide hypothecation deeds dated 30.11.2019, 26.08.2020 at Exhibit AW-1/5 & AW-1/10 in the list of documents Exh. 5.

¶64

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated articles/goods/ vehicles etc., to recover its dues.

¶65

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.93/2023)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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

¶70

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.16.09. 2025

¶73

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

¶74

(OA No.93/2023)

¶75

Page 9 of 9

¶76

[AMBADAS]

Icici Bank Limited v. Jayesh Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Jayesh Enterprises

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

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Jagannath Patil

Union Bank of India versus Pramod Prabhakar Wakodkar

Sitaram Baluram Sutar versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sugandabai Balchand Aute

Yash Ginning and Pressing versus Idbi Bank

Union Bank of India ( Andhra Bank ) versus Khan Amjad Maheboob Khan