Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Krishna Rani

DRT2 Feb 2026OA/2201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed ICICI Bank's application under Section 19 RDB Act for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.20,77,731/- with interest. The court held the dues valid, directed recovery from mortgaged and personal properties, and appointed a recovery officer to distribute sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,77,731/- with interest @12% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery Officer appointed to distribute proceeds from mortgaged land.

Icici Bank Limited versus Krishna Rani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 2201/2022 Date of Institution: 05.11.2022 Date of Decision: 02.02.2026

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at SCO No.237-238, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Krishna Rani w/o Sh. Amar Singh, r/o H.No.79, Village Jandwala Majra Haroli, Block-I, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

¶8

Karn Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh, r/o H.No.79, Village Jandwala Majra Haroli, Block-I, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

¶9

Ravinder Kumar s/o Sh. Amar Singh, r/o H.No.79, Village Jandwala Majra Haroli, Block-I, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. S.K. Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 22.05.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.20,77,731/- with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 05.11.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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 Rs.20,77,731/- with interest against Smt. Krishna Rani and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 13.06.2016, it had granted a loan of Rs.14.50Lacs to defendants in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had mortgaged their land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests. On

¶17

¶18

05.07.2022, a sum of Rs.20,77,731/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 28.02.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 22.05.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-8. 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 Rs.14.50Lacs and on 05.07.2022, a sum of Rs.20,77,731/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.20,77,731/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty One Only) with interest @12% per annum with halfyearly rests from 05.11.2022, 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 mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 10.03.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶21

¶22

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: 02.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Icici Bank Limited v. Krishna Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Krishna Rani

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 Braj Mohan Sharma

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bhole Crain Services, through Its, Proprietor- Shri Parash Ram Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus Manish Kumar Pandey

Rafiqul Alam And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Shri Hari Industries

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Thimmanna and Another