Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Somnath Deshmukh

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/215/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT acknowledged the bank's original application for recovery regarding a defaulted commercial vehicle loan. Since the defendants appeared ex parte, the order allowed the application, directing joint and several payment of the principal and reduced future interest while dismissing the claim for specific recovery of hypothecated assets due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The defendants were directed to pay Rs.23,00,117/- along with future interest @9% p.a. A recovery certificate was issued; the claim for recovery of hypothecated assets was rejected.

Icici Bank Limited versus Somnath Deshmukh — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 26.09.2022 Registered on .. 18.02.2023 Decided on .. 19.02.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--04--23

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE ( Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer ) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 215/2023.

¶3

ICICI Bank Limited,

¶4

A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a banking company within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390 007 and branch office at – Suma House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune 411 005.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Somnath Baburao Deshmukh, At Post Janakshan Lasurne, Taluka Indapur, Walchandnagar, District Pune 413 114.

¶8

2 Mrs. Surekha Somnath Deshmukh, At Post Janakshan Lasurne, Taluka Indapur, Walchandnagar, District … Defendants Pune 413 114.

¶9

Appearances :-

¶10

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 215/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶12

Total Claim Amount Rs.23,00,117/-

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered on 19^th February, 2026)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.23,00,117/- together with future interest @13.51% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶17

Defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is co-borrower. As per the loan application dated 29.04.2019 of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Commercial Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.19,07,700/- to the defendants for purchase of commercial vehicle.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also hypothecated the vehicle namely commercial vehicle Tata Ultra 1518 RTO registration No. MH-42-AQ-4207 in favour of the applicant Bank by executing unattested deed of hypothecation dated 29.04.2019.

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 215/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶20

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants on 22.03.2022. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶21

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 11.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶22

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Rushikesh Pandit, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-6 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶23

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶24

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 215/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶26

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, no document is produced on the record by the applicant Bank showing that vehicle bearing RTO registration No. MH-42-AQ4207 was hypothecated with the applicant Bank. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶27

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.51% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶28

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

A} Original Application No. 215/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶31

B} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.23,00,117/(Rupees Twenty Three Lakh One Hundred Seventeen only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.09.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶32

Sanap ( OA No. 215/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶33

C} Issue Recovery Certificate. D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶34

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 19.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

Icici Bank Limited v. Somnath Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Somnath Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Vilas Shinde

State Bank of India versus Sadanand

Ms Xrbia Ambience Realty LLP versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Vishnu Shingare

Union Bank of India versus Haridas

Union Bank of India versus Suman