Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Madhuri and Anr.

DRT3 Dec 2025TA/1418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited against two co-borrowers for recovery of a commercial vehicle loan amount of approximately Rs. 24.71 lakhs along with interest and costs, in the absence of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of Original Application; directed payment of Rs. 24,71,552.66 with interest within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicles; direction to issue recovery certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Madhuri and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1418 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. 1418 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited E-Block, Videocon Tower Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110055

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ms Madhuri w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh House no.2160/13, Gali no.61, 3rci f 60 feet Road, Molar Band Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi-110044

¶9

Ashok Kumar Singh s/o Sh.Jairam Choudhary House no.2160/13, Gali no.61, 3rd, 60 feet Road, Molar Band Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 Defendants

¶10

Present: Sh.Rakesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶11

Date of Reserve: 10.11.2025

¶12

Date of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 06.03.2020 before I3RT HI Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I through Sh. Arun Chaudhary, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.24,71,552.66 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy One

¶15

T.A. No.1418 of 2022

¶16

Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two and paisa Sixty Six only) as on 11.12.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @8.01% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants as co-borrowers vide loan application dated 16.12.2017, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed Commercial Vehicle loan facility of Rs.27,01,139/- to the dealer M/s PASCO Motors LLP and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant no.2 under Loan-cum-Hypothecation scheme for purchase of Two Commercial Vehicles namely TATA 1615, which was to be repayable in 47 and 58 Equated Monthly Installments respectively against hypothecation of vehicles.

¶18

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants executed Sanction Letter, Credit Facility Application Form along with Terms & Conditions, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable and Power of Attorney by the Borrower with the applicant bank on 16.12.2017.

¶19

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated both Commercial vehicles namely TATA 1615 having Registration no.HR-38X-1315 and HR-38X-5372 in favour of applicant bank.

¶20

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 the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and forced to recall the loan

¶21

T.A. No.1418 of 2022

¶22

facilities provided to the defendants vide notice dated 07.11.2019 to make payment of outstanding amount and handover the possession of commercial vehicle but defendants not cared to reply notice and also to handover the peaceful possession of the vehicles. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

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 22.09.2025, 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.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Arun Chaudhary, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/D, Notices and Receipts Ex.AW1/E & Ex.AW-1/F, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/F, Statement of Account Ex.AW-1/G.

¶25

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.

¶26

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant

¶27

T.A. No.1418 of 2022

¶28

bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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.24,71,552.66 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two and paisa Sixty Six only) together with pendentelite and future interest @8.01% per I 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 vehicles namely TATA 1615 having Registration no.HR-38X-1315 and HR-38X-5372. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶32

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

¶33

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 02.02.2026.

¶34

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

¶35

c 5G1 -- BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.12.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Madhuri and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Madhuri and Anr.

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

Renuka Mittal versus Indian Bank

Shri Manav Mehra son of Shri Ashok Kumar Mehra versus Bank of Baroda

1.M/S Ess Ell Embrodiery versus Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus M/s Jaiswal and Sons

Mrs Bhartiben Bharat Parmar versus Shriram Finance Limited

Kathadbhai Kanabhai Jalandhara versus State Bank of India