Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Shri Abdul Hannan

DRT6 Mar 2025TA/2915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An original application was filed by a bank to recover outstanding vehicle loan dues of approximately Rs. 25.80 lakhs. The court, proceeding ex-parte due to the defendants' absence, allowed the application and directed recovery from the sale of the hypothecated vehicle and the defendants' assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.25,79,631.04 with interest within 30 days; failing which recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicle and assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri Abdul Hannan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2915 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. 2915 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Central Square, DCM Plaza II Manohar Lal Khurana Marg Delhi-110006 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Abdul Hannan Sole proprietor M/s Royal India Enterprises Shop No.8, Kaushik Market Samaypur Chung', Rajiv Colony Ballabhgarh, Faridabad-121001

¶8

Also at: Shri Abdul Hannan Sole proprietor M/s Royal India Enterprises Jalalpur Ferozepur, 40, Mandikhera Mewat, Haryana-122108 2. Sh.Falzur Rehman Jalalpur Ferozepur, 40, Mandikhera Mewat, Haryana-122108

¶9

Also at: Sh.Falzur Rehman Government Middle School Imam Nagar, Distt. Nuh-122108(Haryana) Defendant

¶10

Present: Shri Akash Aggarwal, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 01.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

¶11

So'-

¶12

T.A. No. 2915 of 2022

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 01.02.2022 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,79,631.04 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty One & paisa Four only) as on 02.12.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @7.70% rate of interest from the date of filing of present application till its realization and costs. Further, the name of Shri Amardeep Singh was substituted as authorized representative in place of Shri Dinesh Sharma erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned & disbursed a Vehicle Loan of Rs.26,33,473/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three only) to M/s Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. in order to purchase TOYOTA FORTUNER/3.0 4 X2 AT Car on 07.12.2020 @7.70% interest per annum to be repayable in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.53,647/- commencing from 10.01.2021.

¶16

That in order to avail the vehicle loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Vehicle Loan Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation on 08.12.2020 in favour of applicant bank.

¶17

That in order to secure the vehicle loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the Toyota Fortuner/3.0 4x2 AT Car having Registration No. HR-29-AR-2222, Engine No.

¶18

T.A. No. 2915 of 2022

¶19

2TRA793507, Chasis No. MBJAX3GS500810872-1120 duly registered with Regional Transport Office in favour of applicant bank and agreed for takeover the possession of vehicle by the applicant bank in case of unpaid installments.

¶20

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing loan facility, the defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the terms and conditions despite several requests and reminders failed to pay the outstanding dues and make the vehicle available for inspection by the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreement and issued recall notice dated 02.08.2021 to adjust the dues along with interest but defendants failed to comply the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶21

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 31.10.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as he has failed to file written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Dinesh Sharma (AW1) and Sh.Amardeep Singh (AW-1/A), authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/A, Credit Facility Application Form along with Terms & Conditions of the Loan Ex-AW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/C, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/D, Loan Recall Notice Ex.AW1/E, Receipts Ex.AW1/F, Statement of Account Ex.AW1/G.

¶23

T.A. No. 2915 of 2022

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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.25,79,631.04 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty One & paisa Four only) as on 02.12.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @7.70% rate of interest from the date of filing of this application with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle namely Toyota Fortuner/3.0 4x2 41-^{Car having Registration No. HR-29-AR-} No. 2TRA793507, Chasis No. 2222, Engine MBJAX3GS500810872-1120. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶29

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

¶30

T.A. No. 2915 of 2022

¶31

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.05.2025.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.03.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Shri Abdul Hannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Shri Abdul Hannan

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

Archana Kumari and Others versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S Radhe Radhe Enterprises

Msmodgil Filling Station versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S Shreya Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. versus Mrs. Sunita Kumar

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) versus M/S R.S.Electrical