Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/s Kumar Trading Company and Another

DRT5 Jun 2026OA/1106/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application under the RDB Act 1993 for recovery of Rs. 68.21 Lakhs. The court ordered repayment with simple interest at 8% p.a. and authorized realization from hypothecated stocks or personal assets under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 68,21,519.00 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. jointly and severally; authorization to enforce via SARFAESI Act.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Kumar Trading Company and… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1106/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 05.06.2026

¶6

ICICI Bank Ltd. a body corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and having its Registered Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007 and its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 and having branches all over India and one of its Branch Offices situated at SCO No. 132-134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Jatinder Mishra.

¶7

........A pplicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Kumar Trading Company through its proprietor Sh. Satish Kumar, Jalalabad Road, Old Grain Market, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab - 152026.

¶10

Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Proprietor M/s Kumar Trading Company, R/o Jalalabad Road, Old Grain Market, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab – 152026.

¶11

........Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 03.06.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.68,21,519.00 (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Signatory, who is competent to institute the Original

¶17

2 OA NO.1106/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S KUMAR TRADING COMPANY AND ANOTHER

¶18

Application vide Power of Attorney dated 08.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Overdraft Facility of Rs.40,70,000.00. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Overdraft Facility of Rs.40,70,000.00 vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 13.05.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated its stocks.

¶20

Documents executed : Mandate Letter for Overdraft Accounts dated 13.05.2022, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Document Trail Certificate dated 13.05.2022, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 08.03.2023 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.68,21,519.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶22

3 OA NO.1106/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S KUMAR TRADING COMPANY AND ANOTHER

¶23

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.68,21,519.00 (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶24

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @14.70%p.a. with monthly rests from 02.05.2025 till the realization.

¶25

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.68,21,519.00 (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated stocks of the defendant no. 1 in

¶27

¶28

OA NO.1106/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S KUMAR TRADING COMPANY AND ANOTHER

¶29

execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 29.06.2026.

¶32

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶34

Dated: 05.06.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. M/s Kumar Trading Company and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/s Kumar Trading Company and Another

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

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sandeep Kaur Sekhon

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sohan Lal and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harsh Rana and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Chandan Yarns and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Lalit Pawar and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harjinder Singh