Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Benara Bearings and Piston Ltd.

DRT18 Jan 2025TA/2949/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank applicant's original application for recovery of dues against the respondents who defaulted on vehicle loan installments. The court proceeded ex-parte due to respondents' absence and directed payment of the principal amount along with reduced interest at 12% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs. 24,41,831.28 with future interest @12% p.a. within 30 days; issue recovery certificate to Recovery Officer.

Icici Bank Limited versus Benara Bearings and Piston Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.2949 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. 2949 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Having its branch office at: R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Benara Bearings & Pistons Ltd. Through its director Sh.Panna Lal Jain, Borrower B-702, Lagoon Apartment Gurgaon, Haryana-122001

¶9

Sh P3nna Lal Jain s/o Misri Lal Jain (Co-Borrower/Director) R/o H.No.1/205, Hari Parvat Professor Colony, Agra Civil Line Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Defendants

¶10

Present: Shri Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶11

Date of Institution: 25.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 25.08,2021 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I DeThi Li Fough Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) against the

¶14

554

¶15

T.A. No.2949 of 2022

¶16

defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,41,831.28 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Forty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty One and paisa Twenty Eight only) as on 08.03.2021 alc.ng with pendentzilte and future interest @14.00% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶17

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its sole proprietor vide vehicle loan application dated 09.05.2019, the applicant bank sarctioned and disbursed Car loan of Rs.1,35,457/- (Rupees One Lacs Thiry Five Thousand Four Hundred fifty Seven only) and Rs.21.94.- lacs (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Only) @ior% rate of interest per annum to be repayable in 60 EMIs of PL:;.3,328/- and Rs.51,051/- for purchase of Mercedes Benz / E200 Car on 09.05.2019. The defendants further agreed to pay penal interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding equated monthly installments amount and applicant bank entitled to take possession of vehicles in case of default in making pay news of installments by the defendants.

¶18

Ti-i3t in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendants executed Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions of the Loan and Unattested Deed of Hyp3theLation on 09.05.2019 in favour of applicant bank.

¶19

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants hypothe::ated the vehicle namely Mercedes Benz/E 200 in favour of applicant bank having Regn. No. HR26DD-2855, Engine No.27492030902266 and Chasis No. WDD21 7 1.426L003082 duly registered with registration authorit.

¶20

T.A. No.2949 of 2022

¶21

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 despite several request and reminders and failed to make the vehicle available for inspection in consonance with the agreement entered with the appicani: bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreement and recall the loan through legal notice dated 18.02.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and han Jove the possession of vehicle but defendants failed to comply the notice issued. Hence, the applicant bank has app .- cac €.(:1 this Ti ibunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

NcLces of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and desdite _:)per service, the defendants have chosen to absent - from the proceedings. As per order dated 26.09.2024, the defEnda s ha , ,,e been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared befc re t Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affic it of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶23

in , :1 - der to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evicena wa , ,, of affidavit of Shri Dines Sharma, authorized rept esertaive of the applicant bank who has proved the doc irne as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit Facility App icat..;t, along with terms and conditions of the loan ExAW ./B, unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C, Recall Not :e L).-AW1/D, Postal Receipts Ex-AW1/E, Statement of AccuLrit

¶24

IL. applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments mac e ,:he 0,A. Even otherwise the whole case of the app icam, bank is based on the documents and the same have beer du proved.

¶25

T.A. No.2949 of 2022

¶26

Th case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ban o and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasona.Jic doubts.

¶27

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Det,:s D. ie to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is alalogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the cort - _-Lct between the parties comes to an end and the Cou.t/Ti . : - )unal has a discretion to award the same depending upo the ±cumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid dov4 - iy the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of :ndiL ' , is. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circ �ard keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rate; of L:erest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that into of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of LI% „. is awarded.

¶28

:I - y to light of the above discussions and documents on rea rd, Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I, 9ilow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the appkanc bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs:24,41..831.28 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Forty One Thousari Eight Hundred Thirty One and paisa Twenty Eight only) ahng with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% inte..est annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this app.icatiJri and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recevered from sale of hypothecated vehicle namely

¶31

T.A. No.2949 of 2022

¶32

Mer:edes Benz / E200 Car having Regn. No. HR26DD-2855, Eng ne No 27492030902266 and Chasis No. WD )21314261.003082. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recc vei-€ from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the lefelciants.

¶33

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

¶34

(III i e4 Lies 6 e directed to appear before the Recovery Offi �I, Delhi on 19.03.2025.

¶35

(IV) C:,Qs of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be serr to concerned free of cost.

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 18 01.2025

Icici Bank Limited v. Benara Bearings and Piston Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Benara Bearings and Piston Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Shankar Ganpati Engineering Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Bhaavya Pipe Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus Ms Moti Construction

Uco Bank versus M/S P.R.Creation Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Hitani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri Manish Dhanda