Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Javed Khan

DRT26 Feb 2026TA/454/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal-I delhi allowed the original application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd against two defendants for recovery of Rs. 26,21,563.16 with interest. Based on uncontroverted documentary evidence, the court directed payment within 30 days and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 26,21,563.16 with future interest within 30 days; recovery certificate issued; shortfall recoverable from sale of hypothecated vehicle and other assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Javed Khan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.454 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. 454 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited 2nd Floor, Videocon Tower Block El, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi - 110055 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shiaved Khan s/o Sh. Hamid Khan R/o 949, Rasoolpur Sikroda Dasna Dehat, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh-201302

¶8

Sh.Mohd. Saqib s/o Sh. Faryad R/o 37, Rasoolpur Sikaroda Dasana, Ghaziabad 201003 Defendants

¶9

Present: Shri Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank on 23.07.2020 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred o DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and inancial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for ecovery of a sum of Rs.26,21,563.16 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs wenty One Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Three and paisa ixteen only) as on 07.02.2020 along with pendentelite and uture interest @13.52% per annum with monthly rests from he date of filing of this application till its realization with costs.

¶12

T.A. No.454 of 2022

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of efendant no.1 vide loan application dated 27.03.2019, the pplicant bank sanctioned commercial vehicle facility of s.24,80,480/- and disbursed Rs.24,24,529/- to the dealer shok Auto SL Ltd. Agra' on 03.06.2019 as per request of efendant no.1, which was to be repayable in 47 EMIs of s.69,129/- against hypothecation. Further, the defendant 0.1 agreed to pay penal interest @24% p.a. on the utstanding equated monthly installments amount and pplicant bank entitled to take possession of commercial ehicle.

¶14

That in order to avail the commercial vehicle loan facility, t e defendants submitted Credit Facility Application alongwith erms and Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of ypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney on 27.03.2019 i favour of applicant bank.

¶15

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants ypothecated the commercial vehicle namely "TATA 3118' aving Registration No. PB-13BG-5088' in favour of applicant a nk.

¶16

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after .vailing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with t e sanction terms and conditions despite several request and r minders and to make the vehicle available for inspection by t e applicant bank. The applicant bank terminated the .greements and recalled the loan through legal notice dated •9.01.2020 to adjust the outstanding amount along with i terest and handover the possession of hypothecated SO mmercial vehicles to applicant bank but defendants

¶17

¶18

T.A. No.454 of 2022

¶19

eglected, hence, the applicant bank has approached this ribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶20

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and respite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent f om the proceedings. As per order dated 13.11.2025, the •efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared efore the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence nd affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Shri Dinesh Sharma, authorized presentative of the applicant bank who has proved the ocuments such as Power of Attorney, Credit Facility pplication alongwith Terms and Conditions, Unattested Deed f Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Notices & eceipts, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW1/A to x.AW1/G.

¶22

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved.

¶23

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r asonable doubts.

¶24

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

T.A. No.454 of 2022

ORDER

allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, sum of Rs.26,21,563.16 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Twenty ne Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Three and Paisa Sixteen nly) as on 07.02.2020 along with pendentelite and future terest @13.52% per annum with monthly rests from date of iling of this application and costs failing which the aforesaid mount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial vehicles namely "TATA 3118"^{having Registration} o.PB-13BG-5088. In case of shortfall the same shall be -covered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of t e defendant.

¶29

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

¶30

II) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery fficer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.04.2026.

¶31

V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be ent to all concerned free of cost.

¶32

(GOVIND BALLABH SHAR A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶33

ictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 26.02.2026

Icici Bank Limited v. Javed Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Javed Khan

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

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