Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Lokender Attari

DRT20 Sept 2025TA/1411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte final order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues after defendants failed to appear. The court ordered repayment of the principal amount along with interest and costs pending realization.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.39,43,333/- with interest and costs within 30 days; issuance of recovery certificate to Recovery Officer.

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokender Attari — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1411 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. 1411 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Lokender Attari s/o Ranveer Singh Prop. Shri Shyam Traders (Borrowers) R/o Neemka Shahjahanpur, Near ATM SBI Gautam Buddha Nagar, UP-203155

¶8

Also at:

¶9

Shri Shyam Traders 252, Village Neemka, Shahjahanpur, Near ATM SBI

¶10

Gautam Buddha Nagar, UP-203155

¶11

M/s Kritagya Stones Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director - Mr. Lokender Attari H.No.D-21/A, Ground Floor Gali no.2, Mohanbaba Nagar Tajpura Extn., Badarpur Near Mandir Marg, Delhi-110044

¶12

Guddan w/o Mr. Lokender Attari (Guarantor)

¶13

R/o Neemka Shahjahanpur Gautam Buddha Nagar, Near ATM SBI Uttar Pradesh-203155 Defendants

¶14

Present: Shri Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Institution: 05.09.2022

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 20.09.2025

T.A. No.1411 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 05.09.2022 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Ms. Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19^. of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,43,333/(Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three only) along with pendentelite and future interest @10.55% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till its realization and costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants vide their loan application dated 10.02.2021, the applicant bank sanctioned Vehicle loan of Rs.44,95,000/(Rupees Forty Four Lacs Ninety Five Thousand only) for purchase of a Commercial Vehicle namely 'TATA SIGNA 5530' on 22.022021 @10.55% interest per annum which was to be repayable in 47 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.1,18,321/each under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the applicant bank. As pre request of defendants, the loan amount was disbursed to M/s Ashok Auto Sales Ltd. on 22.02.2021. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the loan facility sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 & 2 by the applicant bank.

¶22

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendant no.1 and 2 submitted loan application and executed Credit Facility Application, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and defendant no.3 executed Deed of Guarantee in favour of applicant bank on 10.02.2021.

¶23

¶24

T.A. No.1411 of 2022

¶25

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated the commercial vehicles namely "TATA SIGNA 5530" having Registration No. RJ-05GB-8317, Engine no.B.67B6A300D02112B64141221 and Chassis no. MAT828017M3B03388 in favour of applicant bank.

¶26

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 request and reminders and to make the vehicle available for inspection by the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and recall the loan through legal notice dated 11.04.2022 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and handover the possession of hypothecated commercial vehicles to applicant bank but defendants neglected. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants chose to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 21.04.2025, 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.

¶28

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, Credit Facility Application along with terms and conditions of loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed of

¶29

¶30

T.A. No.1411 of 2022

¶31

Guarantee, Notices and receipts, Statement of account as Ex.AW-1/A to Ex.AW-1/H.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.39,43,333/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three only) along with pendentelite and future interest @10.55% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial vehicles namely "TATA SIGNA 5530"^having Registration No. RJ-05GB-8317, Engine no.B.67B6A300D021121364141221 and Chassis

¶37

no.MAT828017M3B03388. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

S5d

T.A. No.1411 of 2022

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

¶42

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.11.2025.

¶43

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

¶44

sd_ 5 .2-02-1-- (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.09.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Lokender Attari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Lokender Attari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Eagle Inn Resort

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bhoomi Telecom

Ms Kashyap Trading Company versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sunrise Enterprises

Uco Bank versus M/S Riddhi Medical Store

Central Bank of India versus M/S Pragati Cables