Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Rahul and Anr.

DRT26 Feb 2026TA/2738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceeding within a DRT, the Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank Limited's application for recovery of approximately Rs. 37.50 lakhs advanced as a commercial vehicle loan to the respondent borrowers who failed to repay dues. The order directs payment and recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay Rs. 37,50,797.78 along with future interest and costs, with recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicle and other assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Rahul and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.2738 of 2022

¶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. 2738 of 2022

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Rahul s/o Mr. Surendra Bhati Prop. R. Group Enterprises Greater Noida, Surajpur, G.B.Nagar, Near Police Chowki, UP-201306

¶9

Also at:

¶10

R. Group Enterprises Near Hanuman Mandir, Surajpur, Greater Noida, G.B.Nagar, UP-201308

¶11

Sh. Pawan s/o Mr. Subhash Village Til ki Mondhiya Jokhbad Sikandarabad Rural, Bulandshahr, Govt. Public School, U.P.-201304

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri Rakesh Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 17.02.2026

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 9,6

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III Delhi on 26.07.2021 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,50,797.78 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Seven and paisa Seventy Eight only) along with pendentelite and future interest scl

¶18

T.A. No.2738 of 2022

¶19

@12% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 as proprietor of M/s R.Group Enterprises & defendant no.2 as guarantor vide their loan application dated 29.07.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Commercial Vehicle loan for a sum of Rs.32,99,667 (Rupees Thirty Two lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven only) on 31.07.2019 and disbursed Rs.31.45.249.01 to M/s Ashok Auto Ventures LLP on 31.07.2019 @12% per annum to be repayable in 47 EMIs of Rs.89,240/- for purchase of "TATA LPK 2518" against hypothecation.

¶21

That in order to avail the vehicle loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed of Guarantee in favour of applicant bank on 29.07.2019.

¶22

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the commercial vehicles namely 1^{TATA LPK 2518'} having Engine no. ISB5.9B4S180K191E63792540 and Chassis no. MAT448856K3E14923 in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the vehicle loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite several request and reminders failed to pay the outstanding dues. The applicant bank terminated the agreements and recall the loan through legal notice dated 18.02.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest but defendants failed scf-

¶24

¶25

T.A. No.2738 of 2022

¶26

to comply the notice issued. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants chose to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 21.04.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶28

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 as Power of Attorney, Credit Facility Application alongwith Terms and Conditions of Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed of Guarantee, Notice and receipt and Certified Statement of account marked as Ex.AW-1/A to Ex.AW-1/H.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

T.A. No.2738 of 2022

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.37,50,797.78 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Seven and paisa Seventy Eight only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial vehicle namely "TATA LPK 2518" having Engine no. ISB5.9B4S180K191E63792540 and Chassis no. MAT448856K3E14923. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets 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 28.04.2026.

¶38

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

¶39

(GOVIND BAL H SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.02.2026

¶41

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Rahul and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Rahul and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Surekha

Mr Abdul Mannan And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Vipin