Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Lokinder Singh

DRT25 Feb 2026OA/212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for the recovery of ₹27,23,717/- plus interest, basing the decision on proof of an advance term loan, demand notice, and the respondent's default. The order directed the certification of recovery under the sale of hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹27,23,717/- with interest at 7.60% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Release of proceeds from sale of hypothecated vehicle through Recovery Officer.

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokinder Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 212/2023 Date of Institution: 06.01.2023 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Lokinder Singh s/o Sh. Vidya Singh, r/o Village Sandasu, Tehsil Chirgaon, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Rahul Garg, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 23.04.2025 . OA for the Recovery of ₹27,23,717/- with interest @7.60% per annum with monthly rests from 06.01.2023.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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 ₹27,23,717/- with interest against Sh. Lokinder Singh (defendant).

¶12

Bank’s case is that on 08.09.2021, it had granted Term Loan of ₹30.00Lacs to defendant for Vehicle purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated his vehicle (fully detailed in para No.5v of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @7.60% per annum with monthly rests. On 17.11.2022, a sum of ₹27,23,717/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶13

¶14

On 13.02.2023, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 23.04.2025, he was proceeded ex parte . 4. 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-7. 5. 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 the loan of ₹30.00 Lacs and on 17.11.2022, a sum of ₹27,23,717/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹27,23,717/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen Only) with interest @7.60% per annum with monthly rests from 06.01.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicle fully detailed in para No.5v of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 08.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated vehicle 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 party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Icici Bank Limited v. Lokinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Lokinder Singh

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 Ms Nehra Refrigeration Centre

Canara Bank versus Hemanth

Canara Bank versus Shankargouda

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh