Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Satbir Singh Bhadana

DRT19 Dec 2025TA/274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 45,66,842 against two defendants who defaulted on loan repayments and failed to meet the recall notice.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 45,66,842/- with pendentelite and future interest within 30 days; recovery via sale of hypothecated equipment and other properties if not paid.

Icici Bank Limited versus Satbir Singh Bhadana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.274 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. 274 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited

¶6

R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Satbir Singh Bhadana s/o Mr. Rattan Singh (Borrower) c/o C-973, Near Shiv Mandir Sector-49, Faridabad NIT Faridabad-121001

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Sh. Satbir Singh Bhadana House no.1046, Near Shiv Mandir Sector-49, Faridabad NIT Faridabad-121001

¶12

Ms Sunita Bhadana d/o Chahat Singh c/o C-973, Near Shiv Mandir Sector-49, Faridabad NIT Faridabad-121001 Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 09.12.2025

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 03.10.2022 before DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Rajat Chandra, authorized representative of the applicant bank under cd

¶18

T.A. No.274 of 2022

¶19

Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,66,842/(Rupees Forty Five Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Two only) as on 29.06.2022, out of which Rs.37,52,445/in one loan account and Rs.8,14,397/- in another loan account along with pendentelite and future interest @10.77% per annum respectively from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 vide loan application dated 17.10.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.59,45,000/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Forty Five Thousand only), out of which Rs.46,41,041.99 and Rs.12,15,000/- were disbursed to M/s Global Trading Corporation and JUNO Equipment on 19.10.2019, which was to be repayable in 47 Equated monthly Installments of Rs.1,24,885/- and Rs.32,237/- respectively along with interest @10.77% per annum in order to purchase 1 No. Hydraulic Excavator SY 210 & 1 No. Rock Breaker/JE 500 under loan cum Hypothecation scheme of applicant bank. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the loan facility availed by defendant no.1. the defendants agreed to pay penal interest @24% per annum in case of delay in repayment.

¶21

That in order to avail the both the loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan application dated 17.10.2019 and executed Credit Facility Application alongwith Terms and Conditions, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Deed of Guarantee in favour of the applicant bank on 17.102019.

¶22

¶23

T.A. No.274 of 2022

¶24

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated two Construction Equipments namely Hydraulic Excavator SY 210 & Rock Breaker/JE 500 having Registration No. ORG1920493 & ORG201920169 towards applicant bank.

¶25

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the said loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several request and reminders, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and recall the loan through loan recall notice dated 21.08.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and also handover peaceful possession of the Construction Equipments but defendants have failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶26

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 25.07.2025, 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 defendant.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Rajat Chandra, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Credit Facility Application Form alongwith Terms and Conditions, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed

¶28

¶29

T.A. No.274 of 2022

¶30

of Guarantee, Recall Notice & Receipts, Statement of account marked as Ex.AW-1/A to Ex.AW-1/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

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

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.45,66,842/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @10.77% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated Construction Equipments namely "1 No. Hydraulic Excavator SY 210" & "1 No. Rock Breaker/JE 500" having Serial/ Regn. No. ORG1920493 & ORG201920169 and in case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶36

¶37

T.A. No.274 of 2022

¶38

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

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.02.2026.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.12.2025

¶43

Icici Bank Limited v. Satbir Singh Bhadana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Satbir Singh Bhadana

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

Hdfc Bank versus Dinesh Manchanda

Central Bank of India versus M/S Kanha Trilogy

Icici Bank Limited versus Gulab Chand

Ashwin Bhagwatrao Gawalikar versus Dcb Bank Limited

Sham Lal Goyal versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Teja Singh