Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Aarif Khan

DRT8 Oct 2025OA/946/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. The tribunal directed the absencee respondents to pay the outstanding loan amount along with future interest and recovery certificate. Any shortfall is to be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets or other movable and immovable assets of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 28,27,946/- with future interest of Rs. 12.75% and 9.25% per annum from filing date until realization in full, with interest payable by defendants jointly and severally.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Aarif Khan — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No.946 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No. 946 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited R-847, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Aarif Khan s/o Sahid (Proprietor of S.S. Enterprises) H.No.49, Dhunela (182)

¶9

Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana-122103

¶10

Also at:

¶11

S.S. Enterprises H.No.94, Dhunela (182) Sohna, Gurgaon Haryana-122103

¶12

Arsida Begum w/o Aarif Khan

¶13

(Guarantor)

¶14

H.No.94, Dhunela (182) Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana-122103 Defendants

¶15

Present: Mr. Vipin Jai, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 10.09.2025

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 28.10.2022 through Sh. Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,

¶20

sc/-

¶21

O.A. No.946 of 2022

¶22

1993 Read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.28,27,946/- {out of which Rs.22,69,548/- in the Loan Account no.LVGUR00040605479 and Rs.5,58,398/- in the loan account no.UVGUR00042302954} @12.75% and 9.25% interest per annum respectively from the date of filing of this application till its realization in full.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants vide vehicle loan application dated 29.07.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Commercial Vehicle loan and disbursed Rs.33,39,249/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty Nine only) to M/s Tata Motors Ltd. in purchase "SIGNA 5523". Commercial vehicle on 23.08.2019 @12.75% interest per annum to be repayable in 35 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.1,20,936/-. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for commercial loan facility sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of the Defendant no.1. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed GECL Term loan facility of Rs.6,15,471/- under ECLGS on 29.10.2020 @9.25% interest per annum to be repayable in 48 EMI. The defendant agreed to pay interest plus 2% over the agreed rate of interest in case of default in repayment.

¶24

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants executed Credit Facility Application Form along with Terms & Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Sanction Letter, Undertaking in Relation to Security, Deed of Guarantee by defendant no.2, ECLGS for MSME Self Undertaking by the Borrower with the applicant bank on 29.07.2019 and 28.10.2020.

¶25

¶26

O.A. No.946 of 2022

¶27

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the Commercial Vehicle namely SIGNA 5523 having Registration no.RJ-14GK-9592, Engine No. 91E63789475 and Chassis No. MAT704149KAE10860 in favour of applicant bank on 29.07.2019.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction despite several requests and failed to pay outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The defendants failed to make available the vehicle for inspection in consonance with loan agreement. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and forced to recall the loan facilities provided to the defendants vide notices dated 02.12.2021 & 28.12.2021 to make payment of outstanding amount and handover the possession of commercial vehicle but defendants not cared to reply notices and also to handover the peaceful possession of the vehicle. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.07.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the

¶31

¶32

O.A. No.946 of 2022

¶33

documents as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit facility Application along with Terms and Conditions Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C1 Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/D, Deed of Guarantee Ex.AW1/E, Sanction letter Ex-AW1/F, Unattested deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/G, Undertaking in relation to Security Ex.AW1/, ECLGS for MSMEs Self Undertaking Ex.AW1/I, Recall Notices and Receipts Ex.AW1/J to Ex.AW1/K1, Statement of Account Ex.AW1/L.

¶34

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶35

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶36

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.28,27,946/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Six only) out of which Rs.22,69,548/- in the loan account no.LVGUR00040605479 and Rs.5,58,398/- in the loan account no.UVGUR00042302954

Id-

O.A. No.946 of 2022

along with pendentelite and future interest @12.75% and 9.25% respectively per annum from the date of filing of this application till its full realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated Commercial Vehicle namely SIGNA 5523 having Registration no.RJ-14GK-9592, Engine No.91E63789475 and Chassis No. MAT704149KAE10860. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶43

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.12.2025.

¶45

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶46

)-S-

¶47

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶48

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 08.10.2025

¶49

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Aarif Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Aarif Khan

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

Hdfc Bank versus Sumit

C Vijayakumari versus Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Erstwhile Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited)

South Indian Bank versus Shashank

Ms Arch Spices Private Limited versus Icici Bank Limited

Idbi Bank versus M/S Atul Iron Works

Punjab National Bank (e-Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Shokin and Ors.