Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Shweta

DRT5 Sept 2026OA/50/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Delhi allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues. The defendant, Ms. Shweta Malhotra, did not appear. The Tribunal accepted the bank's evidence and directed the defendant to pay the principal sum along with interest and costs within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.26,08,555/- with interest and costs within 30 days; issuance of recovery certificate.

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

¶1

O.A. No.50 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No.50 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶6

R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ms. Shweta Malhotra w/o Sh.Manas Malhotra (Proprietress: M/s UR Mart) T-10/1505, Paras Tierea, Sector-137 Noida, G.B.Nagar, UP-201301 Defendant

¶9

Present: Mr.Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶10

Date of Reserve: 19.08.2026

¶11

Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2026

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 15.12.2022 through Shri Nitesh Vashisht, its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,08,555/- (Rupees Twenty Six lacs Eight thousand Five hundred Fifty Five only) as on 11.102022 along with pendentelite and future interest @15.75% per annum from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Personal Loan facility

¶15

¶16

O.A. No.50 of 2023

¶17

for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on 25.08.2020 and disbursed an amount of Rs.19,70,500/- in the account of defendant @15.75% rate of interest per annum, which was to be repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.70,371/- from October 2020. The defendant also agreed to pay penal interest @24% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment as per sanction terms.

¶18

In order to avail the personal loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application dated 25.08.2020 and executed Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions on 25.08.2020 with applicant bank.

¶19

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank issued loan recall notice dated 28.05.2021 but defendant failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶20

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 19.08.2026, defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Nitesh Vashisht, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions of the Loan

5d -

O.A. No.50 of 2023

Ex.AW1/2, Loan Recall Notice Ex.AW1/3, Postal Receipts Ex.AW1/4

¶26

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶27

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶28

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.26,08,555/- (Rupees Twenty Six lacs Eight thousand Five hundred Fifty Five only) as on 11.10.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @15.75% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶31

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶32

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 04.112026.

¶33

¶34

O.A. No.50 of 2023

¶35

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶36

(GOVIND BALL;WWSHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶37

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 05,09.2026

¶38

Icici Bank Limited v. Shweta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Shweta

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

Canara Bank versus Sahruk Trading Co. and Anr.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Eranna Alias Eranna Devarmani

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Rajdeep Tissues

State Bank of India versus M/S R R Brothers

Canara Bank versus Deeyog Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Poonam Kushwaha versus Sammaan Capital Limited