Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Bilquish Ahmed and Anr.

DRT5 Sept 2026TA/757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank to recover a loan amount of approximately Rs. 33.42 lakhs from the defendants, who failed to repay vehicle and working capital loans despite bank reminders.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 33,42,352/- along with interest and costs; recovery of shortfall via sale of hypothecated vehicle and other assets; recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

T.A. No. 757 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. 757 of 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited Having its branch office at: R-846, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ms Bilquish Ahmed d/o Khurshid Ahmed Proprietor of M/s Naiem Associates Shop No.1, Sohrab Khan Market Sector-17A, Near G.L.Bajaj University Unchi Dankur, Greater Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar-203201

¶9

Sh.Zubair Ahmed s/o Sohrab Shop No.1, Sohrab Khan Market Sector-17A, Near G.L.Bajaj University Unchi Dankur, Greater Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar-203201 Defendant

¶10

Present: Shri Rachit Bigghe, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶11

Date of Reserve: 19.08.2026

¶12

Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2026

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 03.10.2022 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,42,352/- (Rupees sd

¶15

¶16

T.A. No. 757 of 2022

¶17

Thirty Three lacs Forty Two thousand Three hundred Fifty Two only) as on 04.08.2022, out of which, Rs.27,17,140/- in vehicle loan account along with pendentelite and future interest @11.51% per annum and Rs.6,25,212/- in GECL loan facility account @9.51% pendentelite and future interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization and costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant vide loan application dated 13.12.2019 for vehicle loan facility of Rs.38,20,000/-, the applicant bank sanctioned the loan under loan-cum-hypothecation scheme and as per request, disbursed an amount of Rs.37,70,254/- (Rupees Thirty Seven lacs Seventy thousand Two hundred Fifty Four only) to the dealer M/s SJS Motors on 03.01.2020 for purchase of commercial vehicle namely "TATA LPS 5523" to be repayable in 48 EMI of Rs.1,00,281/- @11.51% interest per annum. Further, the applicant bank disbursed GECL facility by way of working capital loan facility of Rs.7,42,508/- under ECLGS scheme by Govt. of India on 17.07.2020 @9.25% interest per annum to be paid in four years from date of disbursement. In the event of default in repayment of instalments, the defendants agreed to pay penal interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding equated monthly installments over the agreed rate of interest and applicant bank entitled to take possession of commercial vehicle.

¶19

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan applications dated 13.12.2019 & 17.07.2020 and executed Sanction Letters, Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation and ,Irrevocable Power of Attorney on Sc

¶20

¶21

T.A. No. 757 of 2022

¶22

13.12.2019, Undertaking in relation to Security and ECLGS for MSMEs — Self Undertaking on 17.07.2020 in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

That in order to secure the loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated the commercial vehicle namely "TATA LPS 5523" having Engine No. ISB6.7B4S230S191L63816573, Chasis No. MAT704163K3N24428 and Registration No. HR-74B-1235 in favour of applicant 131-1k which was duly registered with the registration authority.

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing both the loan facilities and also taking the moratorium period benefit, the defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline of repayment of the loan as per sanction terms despite several request and reminders and also make the vehicle available for inspection. The applicant bank terminated the agreement and issued recall notice dated 30.06.2022 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest and handover the peaceful possession of commercial vehicle but defendant neither care to reply nor made any efforts to repay the outstanding. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 19.08.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they failed to file written statement and failed to file written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Rajat Chandra, authorized

T.A. No. 757 of 2022

representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/A, Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions of the loan ExAW1/B, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex-AW1/C & ExAW1/F, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex-AW1/D, Sanction Letter dated 17.07.2020, Undertaking in Relation to Security Ex-AW1/H, ECLGS for MSME — Self Undertaking Ex-AW1/I, Loan Recall Notice Ex-AW1/J, Postal Receipts Ex-AW1/K and Statement of Account Ex-AW1/L.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

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.33,42,352/- (Rupees Thirty Three lacs Forty Two thousand Three hundred Fifty Two only) as on 04.08.2022, out of which:

¶36

Rs.27,17,140/- in vehicle loan account along with pendentelite and future interest @11.51% per annum;

¶37

¶38

T.A. No. 757 of 2022

¶39

Rs.6,25,212/- in GECL loan facility account @9.51% pendentelite and future interest per annum

¶40

from the date of filing of the application and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated commercial vehicle namely "TATA LPS 5523" having Engine No. ISB6.7B4S230S191L63816573, Chasis No. MAT704163K3N24428 and Registration No. HR-74B-1235. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶41

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

¶42

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 04.11.2026.

¶43

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

¶44

(GOVIND BALLABH S ARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.09.2026

¶46

Icici Bank Limited v. Bilquish Ahmed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Bilquish Ahmed and Anr.

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

Canara Bank versus Sahruk Trading Co. and Anr.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Eranna Alias Eranna Devarmani

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Rajdeep Tissues

State Bank of India versus M/S R R Brothers

Canara Bank versus Deeyog Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Poonam Kushwaha versus Sammaan Capital Limited