ICICI BANK LIMITED vs R. G. K. Motors PVT LTD AND ORS. on 7 October 2026

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATtr TRIBUNAL' DtrLHI Appeal No.2532022 Arising out ofOA No. 555/2018 @RT-Jripur) !e!!.Ne!23 ICICI Blnk Limited R. G. K. Motor Privrte Limited 07.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir KunarJrin Ms. tjsha Sineh, Advocate for appcllant Sh. Kirti Kapoor, Advocaie for respondents no. I to 3 Sh. R. K. Sal@ha alons with Ms. Tanisha Khubchmdani, Advocates for respondent no. 4 This matter is talen up through Hybrid hearins-

l. The appelldt filed the OA bearing no.555/2018 titled as ICICI Bank Limited Y R.G.K. Motor Privrte Limited which was stated to be p€nding before the DRT-Jaipur. DRT-Jaipur vide judgemeni dated 01.1L2022 has decr€ed the OA against defenduts no. I to 3 i.e. respondents no. I lo 3 but no recovery order was passed against respondent no. 4 who was defendant no. 4 in the Ori8inal Application. The relevant portion ofthe judgemeni dal,ed 0l.l1.2022 is reproduced 28, Accordirgly, this O.igiml Application b .llowed aglinlt the Dele ants No. l,2, & 3 md Origiml Applicatior is disnhsed issins. the DefendlDt No.4.

29. In tle r€sult, this O.A. No. 555 of 2018 is rllowed d€clarinq th.t : (.)_Defend.nb No, 1, 2 & 3 .re jointly lnd severrlly li,bl€ to pay to the npplicrDt baDk s sum of Rs. 4,60,32377 (Rupe$ Four Crore Sixty Lac Thirty Two Thousrnd Eight Erndred Sevetrty Sev€n Orl, alons with p€Dd€ntliie rnd future inlerest @10olo per lnnum (Simple) Irom the Defendlrts fron 26.06.2018 till.he drte ofrealtuation, (b) The applicant b.nk b entitled to recov€r the lbove amount from Pemonal Movable lnd imnovable properti$/arsels of D€fend.Dts No. I to 3. The appliciDt bink h entitled to proce€d sgiinst the srme towirdr recovery of its debt

(c) The rpplicrntbark i! entitled tothe costs.

30. The recovery certifiot€ b€ issred forthwith ard be seDt to the Recovery Oflic€r, DRT, Jiipur.

-:2-:

2. The DRTJa;pur in context oflhe respondent no. 4 has observed

19. Thc onlX issr., rhich requircs consideralion is \hether the subjecl propcrt! \yrs in frct. mortgaged bl delendi.t no.4. in fator ofrpplicant

20. From the documents ffled along wiih this OA it is clear that ro Title Deed or it s photocopy ofthe subject propetty, so chined, as mortgaged, is filed. f,xhibit AW5, is the only docunent h "origin! I of netuon ndum ofentry, is filed bv thc applicaDt brnk.

21. As per Credir Agreement leftr dat€d 08.05.2017 (Exhibit Aw3), it is shosing details ofproperty, as cross collater.l, but name ofowner ofihe property is not mentioned rnrflhere in the eDtire .rrangement Ietter. Ftrrrher in remaining pages (from page N.29 to 47) also detnils of prop€rty, so mortgaged or name of defendant no. 4, is Deither mentioned not this documents is sigDed by d€fendrnt no.4,anywhere.

22. So, h my considered opiDion, the defendant no. 4 have Dothing to do with the docunenh filed rt Exhibit Aw/3 ard 4, aDd so defendant tro. 4 cannot be h€ld responsible foruDy repaynent of ootstanding anount as documenl atExhibitAw/3 & 4, were not erecuted by hin.

23. Now, the only document execuled by lhe defendant no. 4 is to be considcred and the same is exhibit AW5, and $ discussed enrlier, page no. 66 to 7:1, sre rot signed by the defendant no. 4 anywhere, and th€se pages are only signed by an oflicial of applicant bank ihelf. Page no. ?s io 79, is the orly documents, h dechntion, in the matter ofmortgaged by deposit of title deeds, of subject property, executed by defendaDt no, 4 only,

24. lt h important to mention here,lhat title deeds ofsubject, morlgaged propertyr is alrerdy depositcd by TCICI Home IiDrnce Ltd., so igain, how it h possible ihrt tlre same title deeds, on be d€posited with the applicant bank also, It is also, nowhere, mentioned, in this exhibit, that the Title D€eds of this property, is deposited witb ICICI Home FinaDce Lfd.

25. As rightly pointed oDt by Ld. Counsel tor Defendanl No. 4 thal Applicant Bank has nol cliin€d aDy relief from them so the Defendart h not lisble to pay orhlanding amountjoirtly and severally beQuse ir the Relief Clause, the Appliclni Bank has prayed to prss an order i.e:I!g Ps&lC!!1.Us-CjlcslsClerql

26. After having perus€d the entire docunenh, I rn of considercd view that the documeDts of the so called morlgaged property, are mortgaged with a sep.ralc crtity i.e. ICICI Home Finance Ltd. throush mry be a :] group ol Aprilic.nl C.opint but d.finitcl! it is a separate idetrtitl/entitl from rvh$c, thc Drltndxtrt \O.4 obt ined a facilill ofHontc l,o.n on 20.11.2015 vide Slnction Letterfiled at Annetre-A12. I S,,\ \o. I0?/2019. Demand Nolicr ras i$ued hy ICICI B.nk l-td. {nd the SA Applicant bein,l agqricvcd fronr thc actions, iniriatcd b\. thc ICICI bink l,i.l. filed rhis SA \o. 107/2019, u hi([ is still pcnditrg but lrorn the Sxnrtion l.ellrr. il is.1..r lh.i thc subjcct nrortgaged propert! as clnimed itr tl,is Orieinll Apllic.lnin his b.cn lnortg.g.d eiih thc ICICI Homc Financr Lld. and to the ICICI Iiatrk Ltd. Iherefore. I am olthr !i.$ lhxt thc Applicant B.nk is cntitlcd tor rccovcry of outsta ud ing !moutrt from D.Lndrnls lo. I to 3 onlt btrl doi from thc subjcct mortgagcd property.s tht s.tr( is not li'und mortg,ged sith lhe ,^pp1i..nt B.nk.

21. Onr nro.r .sp..l lo b. considcr.d is that as per credit llcilit! arrrngemetrt letter {t Ii\. Aw/1, proposrd limil nxs of Rs. ,1.00 Cror. btrt drrsing po$.r hxs li ilcd uplo Rs. 1.20 Crore onl) and Applic!nt lr{trk is claiming lmouni,s outstrnding for mor. ihan Rs, {.60 (lrorc. so it is not clc^r thrt ifthc drawing power is limited uDn) Rs. 1.2(l Cturr thrn undrr *hrt ri..umst.nc.s. thc .motrnt was disburscd morc thxtr tltc

28. {ccorditrgll, rhis Originxl Applic{tion i\ rlLNed ngninst lhc Dttcndxnt! No. l, 2, .t l.nd Origihal ApDlication is disntis.d.grinst th€ Deren(lnnt No.:1.

3. Ms. Usha Singh, Counsel tur th€ appellant during th€ couse ofthe arguments has rel€rred lhe d€clamtion dated 09.06.2017 which was signed by respondent no. 4 and rhe letler dated 20.07.2017 which was stated to hav€ been written by rhe respondent no. 4 to the appellant. She substantially argued that th€ r€spondent no. a bas mortgaged the subject property and tunher arAued that th€se les€rs were not considered by the DRT-Jaipur while passitrg the impugned judgem€nt dated 01.11.2022.

4. Sh, R K. Salecha, Couns€l for re€pondent no. 4 refened various other documents and stat€d that those doouments wer€ never executed by the respondent no. 4 and in particula refered lhe p.ra no. 21 and 22 ofthe impusned judgement.

6. It is reflectins that the respondent no. 4 has ex€cuted the deola$tion dated 09.06.2017 in favour of the appellant and also address the letter dat€d 20.07,2017 to th€ Manag€r of the appellant which reflects th.t the subject prcperty was mongag€d by the respondent no. 4 to the app€Uant. Howev€r DRT-Jaipur has not considered these documenrs. Accordingly, the impugned judgnenl dated 01.11.2022 is set-aside against the respondent no. 4 with rhe direction to rhe DRT to reconsider the liabitiry aSainst r€spondent no. 4 in the light of the documents as refered hereinabove and other factual position. Ii is m.d€ clear that the recovery proc.edings pending shall continue againsr respondenls no I to 3. The appellat and the respondents are directed to appear on 11.01.2027 before DRT-Jaipur for

7. fte cop) or lh s order be senr to DRlJaipur for informa_ion r.]d (omplian(c :l -' ::: (Dr. Ju(ice Sudhir Kumar Jain) (h.irpcrson