Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Subodh Kumar

DRT3 Jan 2026TA/579/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding loan dues against defaulting borrowers who were absent in court. The tribunal directed the payment of principal, interest reduced to 12%, and future interest.

What did the court decide?

Directions to pay Rs.35,10,809.07 with future interest at 12% p.a. and costs, recoverable upon sale of mortgaged property.

Icici Bank Limited versus Subodh Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 579 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Br ilding, Parliament Street, Nevi Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 579 of 2023

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶6

65, 7, Shell Tower, New Rohtak road Block 65, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Subodh Kumar

¶9

R/o B-146/47, 3rd Floor Shakurpur Colony, Near Samrat Cinema

Delhi-110034

Also at:

Mr. Subodh Kumar

Plot no.160, 2nd Floor Pocket-16, Sector-24, Rohini Delhi-110085

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Deepak Enterprises WZ-129, Ground Floor

¶16

Shakurpur Village, Delhi-110034

¶17

Mrs. Shashi Devi w/o Mr. Subodh Kumar R/o B-146/47, 3rd Floor

¶18

Shakur Pur Colony

¶19

Near Samrat Cinema, Delhi-110034

¶20

Also at:

¶21

Mrs. Shashi Devi w/o Mr. Subodh Kumar Plot no.160, Second Floor Pocket-16, Sector-24

¶22

Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶23

Defendants

¶24

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

¶25

Date of Reserve: 16.12.2025

¶26

Date of Pronouncement: 03.01.2026

T.A. No. 579 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 05.11.2020 before �Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.35,10,809.07 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Nine and paisa Seven only) as on 26.05.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum from 26.05.2020 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants as co-borrowers vide their loan application, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan for Rs.15,26,599/(Rupees Fifteen Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine only) on 28.08.2006 @10.25% interest per annum to be repayable in 180 EMI of Rs.15,942/- in order to purchase of 2nd^{Floor, Plot no.160, Pocket-16, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi.}

¶32

That in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendants submitted housing loan application form and executed Loan Facility Agreement dated 28.08.2006 with the applicant bank.

¶33

41 . That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendants created mortgage of the property by depositing original title documents bearing No.160, Second Floor, Pocket16, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085 with the applicant bank.

5c1-

T.A. No. 579 of 2023

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank. Due to indiscipline in depositing the installments, the applicant bank issued Loan Recall Notice dated 28.03.2015 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants neglected the same, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶38

It has also been submitted that the applicant bank took symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on 16.07.2015 after which SMT. Manjeet Kaur filed an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2022 before the Hon'ble DRT-III bearing S.A. No.364/2015 which was disposed on 18.11.2015. Further, Manjeet Kaur filed an MA bearing No.59/2016 for restoration of SA.

¶39

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 16.12.2025, 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.

¶40

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Dinesh Sharma (AW-1) authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Agreement, Title Search Report, Agreement to Sell, Sale deed, Notice, Loan Foreclosure, Statement of Loan Account, certificate u/s 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act, Certificate

¶41

¶42

T.A. No. 579 of 2023

¶43

u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 marked as Ex.AW-1/1 (OSR) to Ex.AW-1/10.

¶44

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.

¶45

10.^{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.

¶46

11^{1. As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of} Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogcus 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.

¶47

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

¶48

ORDER

¶49

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within 30 days a sum of Rs.35,10,809.07 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ten Thousand Eight

sat-

T.A. No. 579 of 2023

Hundred Nine and paisa Seven only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from 26.05.2020 till the date of realization and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of mortgaged property bearing No. Plot no.160, Second Floor, Pocket-16, Sector-24, Delhi-110085. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of moveable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶54

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

¶55

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 02.03.2026.

¶56

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

¶57

7 Sal—

¶58

(GOVIND BALLABF—TSI--rARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRY-I, DELHI

¶59

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.01.2026

Icici Bank Limited v. Subodh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Subodh Kumar

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

Smt Mala Tulshiram Rathod versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr Nripendra Chandra Mohanta

Minikumari Santhamma Vikraman Nair versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Indu Kishan

Idbi Bank Limited versus Satyaveer Jain

Union Bank of India versus M/S Bawa Appliances P Ltd.