ICICI BANK LIMITED vs RAMESH GUPTA on 19 September 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 30.11.2017 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to *Sd-*

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,11,95,754/- (Rupees Three crores Eleven lacs Ninety Five thousand Seven hundred Fifty Four only) as on 20.07.2017 along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum from 20.07.2017 till the date of its realization and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants as co-applicants, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed loan against property facility of Rs.99,03,027/- on 24.09.2007 @13.75% interest per annum to be repaid in EMIs of Rs.1,29,870/-, two loan of Rs.6,08,096/- and Rs.3,29,417/- @13.85% interest per annum respectively subject to change from to time on 09.12.2009 to be repaid in 120 EMIs of Rs.9,880/- & Rs.5,086/-; aggregating Rs.1,08,40,540/- @15.95% interest against mortgage of property bearing H-3/97, Sector – 18, Rohini, Delhi-110085. The defendants also availed another loan facility of Rs.96,00,000/- on 25.09.2008 from ICICI Housing Finance Co. Ltd. against the mortgage of aforesaid property.

2. That in order to avail the various credit facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed Credit Facility Agreements, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation and Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant bank on 24.09.2007 and 09.12.2009.

3. In order to secure various credit facilities, the defendants created equitable mortgage of their property bearing no.H-3/97, Sector – 18, Rohini, Delhi in favour of applicant bank.

4. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan against property facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the sanction terms and conditions despite sd- several requests and reminders. The applicant bank issued notices dated 15.10.2009, 09.08.2010 and 15.04.2011 recalling the credit facility but neglected by the defendants, due to which applicant bank classified the account as NPA. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

5. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 15.11.2022, 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.

6. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 30.09.2011 duly published in newspapers on 22.10.2011 but borrowers failed to pay the outstanding amount and applicant took symbolic possession of the mortgaged property.

7. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Lokesh Jaiman, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Agreements, Loan Recall Notice dated 15.10.2009, 09.08.2010 and 15.04.2011, Demand Notice u/s 13(2), Newspaper publications, Loan Foreclosure Statement, Statement of Accounts, Loan Foreclosure Statement, Certificates u/s 2A of Bankers Books Evidence Act, Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/18.

Sd-

8. 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.

9. As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous 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.

10. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

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

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.3,11,95,754/- (Rupees Three crores Eleven lacs Ninety Five thousand Seven hundred Fifty Four only) as on 20.07.2017 along with pendentelite and future interest @12%

Sd-

per annum with monthly rests from 20.07.2017 and costs till the realization of its dues, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of mortgaged property bearing no.H-3/97, Sector – 18, Rohini, Delhi-110085. In case of shortfall the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

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

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 18.11.2026.

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

**(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-I, DELHI**

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

Dated: 19.09.2026