Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Devenchander Baljeetchander Bhalla

DRT27 Aug 2026TA/1339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. Choosing 12% per annum interest over the claimed 24%, the Tribunal awarded the principal sum, future interest, and costs, directed the issuance of a recovery certificate, and scheduled parties to appear before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.37,63,058.80 with future interest at 12% p.a. and costs. Recovery certificate issued. Hearing fixed before Recovery Officer.

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

¶1

T.A No. 1339 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

T.A. No. 1339 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Shal Tower, 3rd Floor, Plot No.23, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh New Deihi-110005	Applicant
Versus
1.Sh.Devenchander Baljetchander Bhalla R/o Flat No.A-101, Habitat Apartments Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096
Also at: Sh.Devenchander Baljetchander Bhalla Flat No.207, Floor 2, Tower G2, Unitech Unihomes, Phase II, Plot No.GHP001 Sector-117, Noida, UP-201301
2. Sh.Amrit Bhalla R/o Flat No.A-101, Habitat Apartments Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096
Also at:
Sh.Amrit Bhalla
Flat No.207, Floor 2, Tower G2, Unitech Unihomes, Phase II, Plot No.GHP001 Sector-117, Noida, UP-201301
3. M/s Unitech Limited
Regd. Office: 6, Community Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017	Defendants

¶6

Present: Sh.B.K.Jha, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶7

Date of Reserve: 12.08.2026

¶8

Date of Pronouncement: 27.08.2026

T.A No. 1339 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

Thi s original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 15.06.2022 through Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,63,058.80 (Rupees Thirty Seven lacs Sixty Three Thousand Fifty Eight and paisa Eighty only) as on 25.02.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum with monthly rest from 02.09.2021 till the date of realization and costs.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants no.1 and 2 vide loan applicat on along with allotment letter dated 20.02.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed housing loan of Rs.29,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Nine lacs only) on 28.06.2012 @7.50% interest per annum to be repayable in 207 equated monthly installments for purchasing construction Flat no. 0207, Floor 2, Tower G2, Unitech Unihomes Ph-II, Plot No.GHP001, Sector117, Noida, UP, which was being developed and constructed by the defendant no.3:

¶14

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendants no.1 and 2 submitted loan application with Flat Allotment letter dated 20.01.2012 and executed Home Loan Facility Agreement dated 26.05.2012, Permission to Mortgage Letter and Tripartite Agreement dated 20.06.2012 with defendant no.3 and applicant bank issued by defendant no.3 in favour of applicant bank.

¶15

It has been submitted that as per Tripartite Agreement dated 20.06.2012, the defendant no.3 permitted for creation of

¶16

¶17

T.A No. 1339 of 2023

¶18

equitable mortgage of Flat no. 0207, Floor 2, Tower G2, Unitech Unihomes Ph-II, Plot No.GHP001, Sector-117, Noida, U.P. and lien has been marked and assure that sal deed shall be sent directly when it is registered. The defendant no.1 and 2 assured to pay monthly instalments/interest regularly to the applicant bank notwithstanding to any subsequent changes in the schedule of construction of the project by defendant no.3 or any delay or deferment of project for any reason.

¶19

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 failed to adhere to financial discipline contrary to the terms and conditions of agreement, continuously defaulted in repayment of dues and interest despite several requests and reminders, the defendants failed regularize the account The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice dated 16.04.2019 to liquidate the outstanding with interest.

¶20

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 06.02.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Exhibit AW-1/1, Home Loan Facility Agreement Exhibit AW-1/2, Permission to Mortgage Letter Exhibit AW-1/3, Tripartite Agreement Exhibit AW-1/4, Loan Recall Notice Exhibit AW-1/5, Certificate

sa-

T.A No. 1339 of 2023

Bankers Books Evidence Act Exhibit AW-1/6, Certified Statement of Account Exhibit AW-1/7 (Golly).

¶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 has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶28

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.37,63,058.80 (Rupees Thirty Seven lacs Sixty Three Thousand Fifty Eight and paisa Eighty only) as on

T.A No. 1339 of 2023

25.02.2022 together with costs and future interest @12.00% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A.till the date of realization; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged Flat no. 0207, Floor 2, Tower G2, Unitech Unihomes Ph-II, Plot No.GHP001, Sector117, Noida, UP. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶36

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

¶37

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.10.2026.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.08.2026

Icici Bank Limited v. Devenchander Baljeetchander Bhalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Devenchander Baljeetchander Bhalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank