Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Jagdambay Life Style and Others

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/771/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application by ICICI Bank for recovery of dues. Defendants' challenges regarding authorization, limitation, and interest rates were addressed, resulting in a partial rate reduction.

What did the court decide?

Direct recovery of principal sum with costs and simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date via sale of mortgaged or personal assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Jagdambay Life Style… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.771/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31.05.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.06.2026

¶6

ICICI Bank Ltd. a Body Corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Bank within the meaning of the Banking regulation Act, 1949 and having its Registered Office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007, and its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 and having branches all over India and one of its Branch Offices situated at 1^st Floor, Near N. K. Sharma Office, Chandigarh Ambala National Highway, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab through its Authorized Signatory, Sh. Mohd Vajid.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

M/s Jagdambay Life Style through its Proprietor Sh. Bhagwant Bhushan, House No. 1341, Street No.8, Guru Nanak Dev Nagar, Near Bajwa Nagar Pulli, Sundernagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001.

¶9

Sh. Bhagwant Bhushan S/o Sh. Vidya Bhushan, Proprietor M/s Jagdambay Life Style, R/o House No. E.F.427, Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab - 144001. 2^nd Address: House No. 1341, Street No.8, Guru Nanak Dev Nagar, Near Bajwa Nagar Pulli, Sundernagar, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001.

¶10

Smt. Kavita Bhushan W/o Sh. Bhagwant Bhushan, R/o House No. E.F.427, Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab - 144001. ……..Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant None for Defendants.

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993,

¶15

¶16

OA NO.771/2024 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S JAGDAMBAY LIFE STYLE AND OTHERS

¶17

against the defendants for recovery of Rs.99,55,055.12 (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Fifty Five and Paise Twelve Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Mohd Vajid, Authorized Signatory of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.85,00,000.00 vide Preliminary Application Form dated 25.06.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.85,00,000.00 vide Intimation Letter and Final Credit Application Form, both dated 08.07.2019, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.14,50,000.00 vide Sanction Letter dated 10.08.2020, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2. Defendant nos. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors.

¶19

Defendant nos. 2 & 3 mortgaged their Immovable Property i.e., Industrial Property measuring 416.66 Square Yards situated at Village Kakowal, Hadbast No. 80, Satguru Hosiery Complex, Near Vishal Nagar, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, Punjab as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 vide Sale Deeds 13503, dated 24.12.2013 along with its translations along with Annexure VII-B dated 24.07.2017 for depositing of Title Deeds, Annexure VI-B dated 25.07.2017 for Memorandum of Entry of Title Deeds, Annexure VII-B dated 08.07.2019 for extension of Title Deeds, Annexure VII-B dated 11.08.2020 for for extension of Title Deeds, which are Annexures A9 to A14 to this OA. Documents executed : Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Deed of Guarantee, both dated 08.07.2019, which are Annexures A3 & A6 to this OA; Deed of Hypothecation, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Recall Notices dated 03.07.2023, along with postal receipts, which are

¶20

3 OA NO.771/2024 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S JAGDAMBAY LIFE STYLE AND OTHERS

¶21

Annexures A15 & A16 to this OA; Statement of accounts along with certificate, which are Annexures A17 & A18 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, there was a debit of Rs.99,55,055.12, 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.

¶23

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal. After the service of summons, Sh. Rajesh Gupta appeared on behalf of defendants and filed his Power of Attorney on 19.10.2024. Paper Book was supplied on 28.10.2024. WS on behalf of defendants filed on 25.11.2024. The matter was listed for admission or denial of documents on 25.09.2025, Sh. Jitender Mishra, Deputy Manager & Sh. Mohd. Vajid, Chief Manager appeared with original documents, but the counsel for the defendants objected that the Power of Attorney of the Sh. Jitender Mishra, Deputy Manager, is not original, so he cannot exhibit the documents. Thereafter, none for defendants appeared for process of admission or denial of documents. Therefore, opportunity to participate by defendants in admission or denial of documents was closed vide order dated 11.02.2026.

¶24

The brief facts of WS of defendants are that the application of applicant is not maintainable as the same has not been filed through duly competent and authorized person as Power of Attorney relate to the time when the Official concerned was not holding the designation and was not even posted at the place. It was further stated that the application of applicant is not maintainable on account of vague and incorrect averments. It was further stated that the statement of account has not been filed in accordance with provisions of Bankers Book Evidence Act. It was further stated that the application is not supported by a proper and a valid affidavit. It was further stated that the applicant is required to give separate figures of principal and interest and the applicant cannot claim interest more than 6%p.a. as is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the India. It was

¶25

4 OA NO.771/2024 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S JAGDAMBAY LIFE STYLE AND OTHERS

¶26

further stated that the application is barred by limitation. It was further stated that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide present application because applicant has claimed highly excessive amount by claiming exorbitant and other incidental charges. It was further stated that the OA is also liable to be dismissed on account of fact that the applicant has already availed remedy under SARFAESI Act.

¶27

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Mohd Vajid, Authorized Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. h as been filed. 9. Heard arguments and perused record. 10. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant had proved its case.

¶28

No one is appeared on behalf of defendants for arguments. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A18 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them, defendant nos. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.99,55,055.12 (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Fifty Five and Paise Twelve 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.

¶29

The defendants in their WS has stated that the application is not filed by duly competent and authorized person of applicant. Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Authorized Signatory of applicant is duly competent to file this application as per his Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure A1) issued by the competent authority of the applicant. Affidavit of Sh. Mohamad Vajid, Authorized Signatory was also filed by the applicant along with the OA.

¶30

5 OA NO.771/2024 ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S JAGDAMBAY LIFE STYLE AND OTHERS

¶31

Further, the present application was filed by applicant on 31.05.2024 and is not barred by Limitation as per the statement of account (Annexures A17 and A18) as per which the defendants have made credit transactions in their loan accounts on various dates.

¶32

At the time of arguments or before it, learned counsel for defendants has not produced any evidence which could create any doubt on the claim of the applicant. Contents of WS are vague and contradictory. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the documentary evidence produced by the applicant from Annexures A1 to A18.

¶33

Central Bank of India v/s Ravindra AIR 2001 SC 3095 relates regarding charging of interest by the applicant. However, as per the judgement of Apex Court, award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and postdecree interest at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.

¶34

Further, there is no law which restricts the applicant to proceed for recovery of its dues under RDB Act when it has already initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act.

¶35

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @16.00%p.a. with monthly rests in Working Capital Account and interest @14.25%p.a. with monthly rests in Working Capital Term Loan (ECLGS) Account from 01.02.2024 till the realization.

¶36

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 mortgaged property, undertaking

¶37

6 OA NO.771/2024

¶38

ICICI BANK LTD. VS M/S JAGDAMBAY LIFE STYLE AND OTHERS

¶39

of the defendants, quantum of loans 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.99,55,055.12 (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Fifty Five and Paise Twelve Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 mortgaged property of defendant nos. 2 & 3 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. 13. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 14. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 15. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.07.2026. 16. 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: 24.06.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Jagdambay Life Style and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S Jagdambay Life Style and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Messrs Malik Transport Company and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurmail Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Messrs Thind Builders and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmeet Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ravinder Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Bagecha Singh and Another