Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Baljeet Singh and Another

DRT20 Jun 2026OA/460/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application filed under Section 19 RDB Act. The court directed defendants to pay outstanding dues with interest at 8% p.a. and authorized recovery through hypothecated vehicle or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

To pay Rs. 35,99,817.00 jointly and severally with costs and simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date till realization.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Baljeet Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 460/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31.03.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.06.2026

¶6

ICICI BANK LIMITED, having its Registered Office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, 390-007, Gujarat Inter Alia having a Bank Branch at Sangrur, Punjab, through its Attorney/Authorized Representative, Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Baljeet Singh S/o Sh. Sukhchain Singh R/o Nawangaon, Sangrur - 148033.

¶9

Sh. Dharma Singh S/o Sh. Visakha Singh R/o Dera Narwana Road, Duttal, Patiala - 147001.

¶10

…….Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Advocate for Applicant.

¶13

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 18.10.2024)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.35,99,817.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager, of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.35.30 lacs for purchase of commercial vehicle vide Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form dated 31.08.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor.

¶17

¶18

OA/460/2023 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS. SH. BALJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 35.30 lacs, vide Credit Facility Application Form dated 31.08.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his commercial vehicle that’s Ashok Layland 4220H, bearing Registration on. PB13BM9615, Engine no. MJPZ108728, Chassis no. MB1NGCHD6MPHN1624 vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 31.08.2021, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Virtual Registration Certificate of vehicle was filed on 04.02.2025 vide Dairy no. 1734 in compliance of order dated 22.10.2024. Documents executed: Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 31.08.2021, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Guarantee dated 31.08.2021, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Statement of Account and Foreclosure Statement of the Loan dated 30.01.2023, which are Annexure A7 & A8 to this OA; Notice with Postal Receipts dated 29.12.2022, which are Annexure A9 to A12 to this OA; Certificate regarding the Computer System and the genuineness of the Statement of Account dated 20.03.2023, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.35,99,817.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen Only), 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 18.10.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Mohammad Vajid, Manager, ICICI B ank Limited, has been filed.

¶20

¶21

OA/460/2023 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS. SH. BALJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶23

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1 approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. 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, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.35,99,817.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen 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.

¶25

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.50% p.a. plus 2.00% p.a. penal interest with monthly rests from 31.01.2023 till the realization.

¶26

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 vehicle, 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.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.35,99,817.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight

¶28

¶29

OA/460/2023 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS. SH. BALJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶30

Hundred Seventeen 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 vehicle of the defendant no. 1 in 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.

¶31

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.07.2026

¶34

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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 20.06.2026.

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Baljeet Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Baljeet Singh 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S P.M. Enterprises and Others

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vajir Singh Alias Sh. Wazir Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sandip Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S D R Selections and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Amandeep Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Boota Singh