Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sbt Constructions

DRT6 Mar 2026OA/1617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of dues. The court held that the bank proved its case of loan advancement and proceeded ex parte due to defendants' absence, issuing a recovery certificate directed at the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹57,53,485/- with interest at 9% p.a. allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of hypothecated vehicles permitted.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sbt Constructions — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1617/2024 Date of Institution: 13.10.2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2026

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Una, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

SBT Constructions, Khasra No. 192, Ward No. 4, VPO Samur Kalan, Dangerha, Tehsil and Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh, through its proprietor Sanjeev Kumar.

¶7

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Jeet Singh, sole proprietor of SBT Constructions, r/o VPO Samur Kalan, Dangerha, Tehsil and Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 23.04.2025 .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of ₹57,53,485/- with interest @9.00% p.a. with monthly rests from 13.10.2024.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

ICICI Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹57,53,485/- with interest against SBT Constructions and another (defendants).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 03.01.2022, it had granted Term Loan-I of ₹34,87,990/- to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Vehicle purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated vehicle bearing Registration No. HP72D3007 (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Again on 28.02.2022, at the request of the defendants, bank granted Term Loan-II of ₹33,63,658/- to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Vehicle

¶15

¶16

purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated his vehicle bearing Registration No. HP72D4007 (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Both the loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 27.05.2024, total sum of ₹57,53,485/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 07.11.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 23.04.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mohd. Vajid, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-19.

¶19

I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced loan under different schemes and on 27.05.2024, a sum of ₹57,53,485/- was due.

¶20

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹57,53,485/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Five Only) with interest @9.00% p.a. with monthly rests from 13.10.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicles fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶21

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶23

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 14.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of hypothecated vehicles as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 06.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Icici Bank Limited v. Sbt Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sbt Constructions

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Joginder Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Pritpal Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Abhay Pundeer

Canara Bank versus Sri. Maruthi Sidram Aski

Hdfc Bank versus Dinesh Kumar

Bank of India versus Sh Atma Singh