w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


ICICI Bank Ltd V/S Puneet Cargo Express

    OA No. 427/2018
    Decided On, 06 February 2020
    At, Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DHARMINDER SINGH
    By, (PRESIDING OFFICER)
    For Petitioner: Satish Kashyap


Judgment Text
1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 26.02.2018, through Sh. Anushrav Dixit, Authorized Representative of the applicant bank, who is well conversant with the facts of the case and is authorized to institute the present OA by virtue of a Power of Attorney in his favor, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of ` 26,37,922.76 (Rupees Twenty Six lakhs, Thirty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Seventy Six only) along with costs & pendente lite and future interest @ 24.0 % per annum from 18.12.2017 till its realization in full, along with costs and expenses.

2. Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that in the month of February 2016, the defendant approached and requested the applicant bank for the sanction of a Loan under Commercial Vehicle Loan Scheme of ` 40.95 Lakhs against the security of Hypothecation of Two Commercial Vehicles (Chassis & Body) namely PSV 4-186.

3. It is stated that on such request made by the defendant Nos. 1 & 2, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed four separate loans of totaling ` 40,95,000/- on 25.05.2016, repayable as under:



4. In consideration of sanction of the said loan, the defendant executed on 23.02.2016 the Facility Agreement containing deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of Attorney and undertaking to repay the Term Loan as per the repayment Schedule. As per contractual agreement, the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. in case of default.

5. Further, it is stated that after availing the loan, the Defendant failed to maintain financial discipline, defaulted on due installments and despite reminders failed to regularize the account resulting in the account being classified as NPA. The applicant bank issued the Recall notice dated 30.10.2017, calling upon the defendant to pay the dues of the applicant bank, but the same was not complied with by the defendant. Hence, the applicant bank was left with no option except to file the present original application against the defendants.

6. Notice was issued. Despite service, none of the defendants appeared before this Tribunal. The case was directed to proceed ex-parte against all the defendants vide order dated 04.02.2020 of this Tribunal.

7. To prove its case, the applicant bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Anushrav Dixit, Authorized Representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents filed on behalf of applicant bank which includes Copy of Power of Attorney as (Ex. AW-1/1); Copy of PAN Card of Defendant (Mark-A); Copy of Aadhar Card (Mark-B); Copy of Election Identity Card (Mark-C); Original Credit Facility Agreements as (Ex-AW-1/2 & AW-1/3); Deed of Hypothecation (Ex-AW-1/4); Irrevocable Power of Attorney (Ex. AW-1/5); Disbursement Memos (Ex. AW-1/6 to AW-1/9); Vehicle Registration Reports (Mark-D & E); Copies of Notice dated 30.10.2017 as (Ex. AW-1/10 Colly); Statements of Account as (Ex. AW-1/11 to AW-1/18) and Certificates under Bankers Book of Evidence Act & Indian Evidence Act (Ex. AW-1/19 & AW-1/20).

8. Heard and record has been thoroughly perused.

9. The witness of the applicant bank has proved the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on documents and the witness of the applicant bank has proved the case as against the defendant with the help of documents filed. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. The Applicant bank has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 24.0 % per annum from the date of filing the present application till its realization in full. However, the Credit Facility Application Form (Exh. No. AW-1/2) states that the contractual rate of interest applicable is fixed @ 10.75% p.a. only and only that is allowed.

11. In the light of the above discussions, the OA deserves to be allowed against the defendant.

ORDER

(i) I allow this OA and direct the defendant, to pay the sum of ` 26,37,922.76 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs, Thirty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Seventy Six only) along with costs & pendente lite and future interest @ 10.75% per annum from 18.12.2017 till its realization in full, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of Two Commercial Vehicles of PSV 4-186 Make, bearing Registration Nos. UP-81-BT-6292 & UP-81-BT-6293 as well as personal movable & immovable properties of the Defendant and its Proprietor.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
/>(ii) The cost of litigation be also borne by the defendant. (iii) The applicant bank is also directed to file the revised statement of account before the Ld. Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. (iii) The Recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-I, Delhi on 18.03.2020. (v) Copies of the final order be sent to all concerned free of costs. Files be consigned to records.
O R