Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Samir Saifi

DRT5 Jul 2025TA/1842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceedings, the Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues. The court awarded principal and interest at 12% per annum, authorizing recovery via sale of hypothecated equipment.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 43,59,317/- plus pendentelite and future interest at 12% p.a. to the applicant within 30 days, recoverable from sale of hypothecated equipment.

Icici Bank Limited versus Samir Saifi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1842 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. 1842 of 2022

¶5

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

¶6

Versus

¶7

Samir Saifi s/o Mr. Nabab Saifi (Borrower) Proprietor of 3S Enterprises R/o Ronija, Gautam Buddha Nagar Near Main Road, Purani Haveli Uttar Pradesh 203209

¶8

Also at: M/s 3S Enterprises Village Ronija, Tehsil Jever Gautam Buddha Nagar Near Purani Haveli Uttar Pradesh -203209

¶9

Mr. Nawab Khan s/o Mr. Shera Khan (Co-Borrower) R/o Ronija, 197 Gautam Buddha Nagar Near Main Road, Purani Haveli Uttar Pradesh-203209

¶10

Mr. Parmod Kumar s/o Mr. Narayan Singh (Guarantor) R/o Ronija, Gautam Buddha Nagar Near Shiv Mandir Uttar Pradesh-203209 Defendants

¶11

Present: Shri Rakesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

¶13

T.A. No.1842 of 2022

¶14

Date of Institution: 02.03.2022

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 02.03.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Ms. Alka Sharma, 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 a sum of Rs.43,59,317/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventeen only) along with pendentelite and future interest @13.53% per annum with monthly rest from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants vide loan application dated 23.11.2020, the applicant bank sanctioned Commercial Equipment Loan of Rs.44,86,490/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety only) on 23.11.2020 and disbursed an amount of Rs.44,38,400/- to M/s A and A Earthmovers Pvt.Ltd. on 25.11.2020, which was to be repayable in 46 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,26,799/- for purchase of Construction Equipment namely 'JCB Excavator/JS205' @13.53% interest per annum. Further, the defendants agreed to pay a penal interest @24% per annum in case of default or delay. The Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for loan facility

¶19

¶20

T.A. No.1842 of 2022

¶21

sanctioned by the applicant bank in favour of the defendant no.1 and 2.

¶22

That in order to avail the Loan facility, the defendants no.1 and 2 submitted loan application and executed Credit Facility Application form along with terms and conditions, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation and Irrevocable Power of Attorney on 29.10.2018 and defendant no.3 executed Deed of Guarantee in favour of applicant bank on 29.10.2018 undertaking to pay the amount in the event of failure by defendant no.1 and 2.

¶23

That in order to secure the commercial loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the Construction Equipment vehicle namely JCB Excavator/J5205 having Registration Number/ Serial No. ORGT202000415 in favour of applicant bank.

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the commercial vehicle loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The defendants failed to produce the Construction Equipment for Inspection of the applicant bank as per consonance with the agreement entered. The applicant bank withdraw the loan facility and issued legal notice dated 18.10.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest but defendants have failed to comply with the notice. 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 through publication in newspapers, the

sce

T.A. No.1842 of 2022

defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 11.04.2025, 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.

¶30

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 such as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit Facility Application Form Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C, Irrevocable Power of Attorney ExAW1/D, Deed of Guarantee Ex-AW1/E, Notice and Postal Receipts Ex-AW1/F and Ex-AW1/G, Statement of Account Ex-AW1/H.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

5d-

¶34

T.A. No.1842 of 2022

¶35

that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶36

10.^{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.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.43,59,317/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventeen only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests and costs from date of filing of this application failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial equipment namely JCB Excavator/JS205 having Registration Number/ Serial No. ORGT202000415. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶40

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

¶41

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 04.09.2025.

¶42

¶43

T.A. No.1842 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

(GOVIND BALLABH S ARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶46