Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Arvinder

DRT28 Apr 2025OA/949/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of approximately Rs. 30.13 lakhs including interest. The court rejected the defendants' case as they failed to appear, find their default unrebutted, and issued an order for payment and recovery from assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.30,13,440/- with interest within 70 days; funds to be recovered from sale hypothecated vehicles/other assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Arvinder — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 949 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. 949 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Having its branch office at: R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060 Applicant Versus

¶6

Sh.Arvinder s/o Teja Singh Proprietor of M/s Yashdeep Traders (Borrower) R/o 16, Village Habibpur Gautambudh Nagar, Noida, UP-201306 2. Ms Vijay Laxmi w/o Sh.Arvind (Co-Borrower) R/o 16, Village Habibpur Gautambudh Nagar, Noida, UP-201306 Defendants Present: Shri Rakesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 28.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2025

¶7

FINAL ORDER

¶8

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.01.2022 through Ms.Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 sd-

¶9

O.A. No. 949 of 2022

¶10

against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,13,440/(Rupees Thirty Lacs Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty only) as on 19.04.2022, out of which Rs.25,30,741/- @10.65% interest per annum in Vehicle Loan account & on Rs.4,82,699/together with pendentelite and future interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rest in GECL Loan account from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants being borrower/co-borrower, the applicant bank sanctioned commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.36,22,338/- in order to purchase vehicle namely "TATA LPT 3118" and disbursed the amount of Rs.35,05,859/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Nine only) to M/ Ashok Auto Sales Ltd. @10.65% interest per annum to be repayable in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.94,682/- each on 28.022019 as requested. The defendants further agreed to pay penal interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding equated monthly installments amount and applicant bank entitled to take possession of commercial vehicle purchased. On the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL loan of Rs.5,81,334/- under ECLGS on 08.09.2020 @9.25% interest to be repaid in 48 EMIs from the date of disbursement of loan.

¶12

That in order to avail the both loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications dated 25.01.2019 & 08.09.2020 and executed Sanction Letters, Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation and Irrevocable Power of Attorney on 25.01.2019 and 08.09.2020 along with Undertaking in Relation

¶13

O.A. No. 949 of 2022

¶14

to Security and ECLGS for MSMEs Self Undertaking in favour of the applicant bank.

¶15

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the commercial vehicle namely "TATA LPT 3118" having Engine No. ISB5.9B4S180K191A63761771, Chasis no. MAT466461K3A01494 bearing Registration no. UP16FT9812 in favour of applicant bank and agreed for takeover the possession of vehicle by applicant bank in case of unpaid installments.

¶16

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and reminders failed to pay the outstanding dues and make the vehicles available for inspection by the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreement and recall the loan and issued legal notice dated 28.12.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and handover the possession of commercial vehicles but defendants did not reply and failed to comply the notice issued. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶17

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 27.02.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have failed to file written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

¶18

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms.Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/A, Credit Facility 54'

¶19

O.A. No. 949 of 2022

¶20

Application along with Terms & Conditions of Loan Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/C, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/D, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/E, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/F, Undertaking in Relation to Security Ex.AW1/H, ECLGS for MSMEs Ex.AW1/I, Notice Ex.AW1/J, Receipts Recall Notice Ex.AW1/K, Statement of Accounts Ex.AW1/L.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 70 days, a sum of Rs.30,13,440/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty only) as on 19.04.2022, out of which

¶26

Rs.25,30,741/- @10.65% interest per annum in Vehicle Loan account;

¶27

¶28

O.A. No. 949 of 2022

¶29

Rs.4,82,699/- @9.25% interest p.a. with pendentLlite and future interest.

¶30

from date of filing of this OA along and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated two commercial vehicles namely "TATA LPT 3118" having Engine No. ISB5.9B4S180K191A63761771 and Chasis no. MAT466461K3A01494 bearing Registration No.UP16FT9812. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶31

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

¶32

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.06.2025.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.04.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Arvinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Arvinder

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Komal Arora

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Umaxe Projects

Jacy Fazal versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri/ Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar

Sri Nagendra Jha versus Central Bank of India