Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Praveen Kumar

DRT21 Feb 2026OA/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues after the defendant failed to appear and file a written statement. The order mandates payment of the outstanding principal, interest, and costs, with directions for recovery from hypothecated vehicles and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 2,00,85,631.78 plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued for enforcement against hypothecated vehicles and other assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Praveen Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 59 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. 59 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Parveen Kumar s/o Mr. Mamchand Singh Proprietor M/s R.B.Transport Company HS.No.127, Dadha, Gautam Buddha Nagar Near Sadar Tahseel, UP-201310

¶9

Also at:

¶10

R.B. Transport Company Having its Office at:

¶11

Mamchand Market, Main Kasna Road Kasna, Greater Noida, G.B.Nagar Near Corporation Bank, UP-201310 Defendants

¶12

Present: Shri Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Reserved: 21.01.2026

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 29.11.2022 through Ms Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,85,631.78 (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred Thirty One and

¶17

¶18

O.A. No. 59 of 2023

¶19

paisa Seventy Eight only) as on 16.07.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.26% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant vide loan application dated 21.10.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned commercial vehicle loans of Rs.1,94,24,430/- @8.76% interest to be repayable in 60 EMIs of Rs.32,741/- and Rs.7,782/- and disbursed Rs.1,49,94,690/to M/s Ashok Auto Ventures LLP' and Rs.36,87,658/- to M/s R.B.Transport Company as per request of defendant for purchase of Ten Commercial vehicles namely 'TATA LPT 1618' on 01.11.2019 under loan cum Hypothecation scheme. Further, the applicant bank restructured the loan facilities due to pandemic Covid-19 on 22.02.2021 as per RBIs "MSME Restructuring Circular" and modified the repayment of EMIs from 60 to 63 & 69 EMIs @9.26% interest per annum. The defendant agreed to pay penal interest @24% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment of instalment.

¶21

That in order to avail the commercial vehicle loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Credit Facility Application Form along with Terms and Conditions, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of applicant bank on 21.10.2019 and endorsed the modified terms and conditions for restructuring of loan facility on 22.02.2021.

¶22

That in order to secure the commercial vehicle loan facilities after the disbursal of loan to the dealer, the defendant sd

¶23

¶24

O.A. No. 59 of 2023

¶25

hypothecated the following commercial vehicles with body in

¶26

favour of applicant bank:

¶27

Loan no.	Commercial Vehicles	Reg. no.
LVNOD00041022144	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-5966
LVNOD00041022160	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-5966
LVNOD00041022164	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-5964
LVNOD00041022180	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-5963
LVNOD00041022186	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-5962
LVNOD00041022195	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-6057
LVNOD00041022215	TATA LPT 1618	U P-16GT-5968
LVNOD00041022221	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-6059
LVNOD00041022229	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-5965
LVNOD00041022233	TATA LPT 1618	UP-16GT-6058
LVNOD00041022254	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022259	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022267	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022273	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022297	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022306	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022327	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022330	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022333	TATA LPT 1618	BODY
LVNOD00041022339	TATA LPT 1618	BODY

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the sanction terms and conditions and several cheques issued by the defendant were dishonored. The defendant failed to maintain financial discipline despite several requests and reminders, failed to pay the outstanding dues and make the vehicles available for inspection by the applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and issued legal notice dated 07.122021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and handover the possession of commercial vehicles but defendant did not reply and failed to comply the notice issued. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent

Sd-

O.A. No. 59 of 2023

from the proceedings. As per order dated 24.11.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as they have failed to file written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Alka Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Credit Facility Application alongwith Terms and Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Notice alongwith Receipts, Statement of Accounts marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/G.

¶35

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 proved.

¶36

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.

¶37

10.^{In the light of the above discussions and documents on} record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.2,00,85,631.78 (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred Thirty One and paisa Seventy Eight only) along with pendentelite and future interest @9.26% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this OA along and costs

se , -

O.A. No. 59 of 2023

failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of following hypothecated TATA LPT 1618 Commercial Vehicles having registration numbers: UP-16GT-5966, UP-16GT-5967, UP-16GT-5964, UP-16GT-5963, UP-16GT-5962, UP-16GT6057, UP-16GT-5968, UP-16GT-6059, UP-16GT-5965, UP16GT-6058. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶44

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

¶45

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 23.04.2026.

¶46

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

¶47

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶48

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.02.2026

¶49

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Praveen Kumar

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

Sakeena versus Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Abdul Sathar Pookkattil versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S.F. Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain

Punjab National Bank versus M/S J.J. India