ICICI BANK LIMITED vs ARTI SINGH AND ANR on 14 August 2026

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi

4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building,

Parliament Street, New Delhi

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No. 79 of 2023

ICICI Bank Limited

65, 7, Shell Tower, New Rohtak road

Block 65, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005

Versus

1.

Mrs.Arti Singh w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh H.No.G-186, Sector-22, Block G, Noida, Near Federal Bank, G.B.Nagar, UP-201301

Also at:

Mrs.Arti Singh w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh Village Laxman Pur, Barhiya Fareed Khan Balrampur, UP-271306

Also at:

Mrs.Arti Singh w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh H.No.G-1986, Sector-22, Block G

Police Station Sector-23, Tehsil Dadri

G.B.Nagar, UP-201301

2.

Sh.Vijay Kumar Singh s/o Laxman Singh

H.No.G-186, Sector-22, Block G, Noida,

Near Federal Bank, G.B.Nagar, UP-201301

Also at:

Sh.Vijay Kumar Singh s/o Laxman Singh

Village Laxman Pur, Barhiya Fareed Khan

Balrampur, UP-271306

Applicant

Defendants

Present: Shri B.K.Jha, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 04.08.2026

Date of Pronouncement: 14.08.2026

' FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 28.09.2021 before Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of 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.29,53,678.20 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight and paisa Twenty only) as on 20.07.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @24.00% per annum with monthly rest from 20.07.2021 till the date of its realization and costs.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants vide loan application dated 21.01.2020, the applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed Commercial Vehicle loan of Rs.30,91,003/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Ninety One Thousand Three only) on 14.02.2020, which was to be repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.82,350/- w.e.f. 22.03.2020 which was extended to 57 EMIs of Rs.81,244/- due to pandemic Covid-19 and subsequent RBI guidelines, in order to purchase commercial vehicle namely TATA LPK 2518/20CUM BOX BS4

having Registration Number UP16-GT-8451 @11.76% interest per annum. As per request of defendant no.1, loan was disbursed to M/s A&A automobiles. The Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for vehicle loan sanctioned to defendant no.1 by the applicant bank. Further, the defendant no.1 agreed to pay penal interest @24% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment.

3.

That in order to avail the commercial vehicle loan facility, the defendants submitted loan application dated 21.01.2020

and executed Credit Facility Application along with Terms and Conditions of the Loan, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Deed of Guarantee with the applicant bank on 21.01.2020.

4.

That in order to secure the commercial loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the commercial vehicle namely TATA LPK 2518/20CUM BOX BS4 having Registration Number UP16-GT-8451 in favour of applicant bank.

5.

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the commercial vehicle loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank despite several requests. The applicant bank issued loan recall notice dated 15.06.2021 to adjust the outstanding amount along with interest but defendants have failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

6.

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 18.03.2024, 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.

7.

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr.Alka Sharma, authorized Sc) /

representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1(OSR), Copy of PAN Cards & Aadhar Cards, Voter IDs Mark-A to Mark-F, Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form Ex.AW-1/2, Credit Facility Application Form Ex.AW-1/3, Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/4, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/5, Copy of Vehicle Registration Report Mark-G, Notice and Receipts Ex.AW-1/6(Colly), Foreclosure Statement Ex.AW- 1/7, Statement of account Ex.AW-1/8, Repayment Schedule Ex.AW-1/9, Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/10 and Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/11.

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 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.

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