Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Deepak Sharma

DRT12 Feb 2025TA/1230/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application ex-parte. The court confirmed the principal dues but modified the interest rate from 24% to 12% citing global interest rate trends before directing recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs 26,40,707.25 along with interest at 12% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; recovery from hypothecated vehicle.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Deepak Sharma — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A No. 1230 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

T.A. No. 1230 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Having it branch at: 65, 7, New Rohtak Road Block 65, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh.Deepak Sharma s/o Subhash Chand Sharma Village Silokhra, Unitech House, Near Sector 41, Gurgaon-122001

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Sh.Deepak Sharma s/o Subhash Chand Sharma Savoire, B-103, Ground Floor South City-I, Gurgaon-122001

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Sh.Deepak Sharma s/o Subhash Chand Sharma 4342, Sector-23, Gurgaon-122001

¶13

Sh.Subhash Chand Sharma s/o Mange Ram H.No.93, Village Salokhra, Near Sector 41, Gurgaon-122001 Defendants

¶14

Present: Sh.Satish Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 23.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 23.11.2021 through Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶17

T.A No. 1230 of 2022

¶18

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,40,707.25 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred Seven and paisa Twenty Five only) as on 02.09.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum with monthly rest from 02.09.2021 till the date of realization and costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Car Loan facility for a total sum of Rs.28,17,700/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lacs Seventeen thousand Seven hundred only) on 18.11.2019 @9.00 interest to be repayable in 60 EMI of Rs.59,031/starting from 10.12.2019 modified to 67 EMI of Rs.58,389/due to Covid 19 pandemic in order to purchase Ford Endeavour / Titanium 3.2 4x4 AT. The defendant no.2 stood as coborrower for the car loan facility availed.

¶20

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants executed Credit Facility Application Form / Loan AgrJement, Deed of Hypothecation and Irrevocable Power of Attorney on 18.11.2019.

¶21

To secure the car loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the Endeavour / Titanium 3.2 4x4 AT make Car bearing No.HR26EE9000 in favour of applicant bank.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several requests and reminders the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the

¶23

T.A No. 1230 of 2022

¶24

applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued the legal notice dated 03.02.2021 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank hut the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank therefore neglected to pay and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

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 25.10.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they did not appear before this tribunal despite service through publication and non filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1(OSR), Copy of PAN Cards — Mark-A & C, Copy of Aadhar Cards— Mark B & Passport Card Mark-E, Pensioners' Identity Card Mark-F, Preliminary Credit Facility Application Forms Ex.AW-1/2, Credit Facility Application Form Ex.AW-1/3, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/4, Disbursement Memo Ex. AW-1/5, Copy of Vehicle Registration Report Mark G, Loan Recall Notice Ex.AW-1/6(colly), Foreclosure Statement Ex.AW-1/7, Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/8, Repayment Schedule Ex.AW1/9, Certificate under 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW1/10, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. AW1/11.

¶27

T.A No. 1230 of 2022

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶31

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.26,40,707.25 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Forty Thousand

¶34

¶35

T.A No. 1230 of 2022

¶36

Seven Hundred Seven and paisa Twenty Five only) as on 02.09.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum with monthly rest from 02.09.2021 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated Endeavour / Titanium 3.2 4x4 AT make Car bearing No.HR26EE9000. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶37

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

¶38

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 15.04.2025.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.02.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Deepak Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Deepak Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Jai Bajrang Minerals Proprietor / Leagal Heir Smt. Yogini Wd/o Gaurishankar Motghare

Renu Prasad versus Axis Bank

Ms Abacus Infocon Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Punjab National Bank

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sharanabasappa Alias Sharanabasappa Police Patil

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Saurabh Sharma

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vallabh Gandhi