ICICI BANK LIMITED vs ELITE BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED on 10 April 2026

J U D G M E N T

1. 1. This is an application under Section 19(1) of Recovery of the Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, 'the 1993 Act') to recover Rs.2,10,60,685/- with future interest thereon from the date of presentation of the Transfer Original Application till payment/realization and to enforce the mortgaged securities.

2. 2. The Defendants were granted an Overdraft Facility for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Dropline Overdraft Facility for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- vide sanctioned letter dt.30.09.2008 and Overdraft LACR for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- vide sanction letter dt.03.02.2009 as specified in para no.5.3 and 5.7 of the Transfer Original Application and on them executing loan and security documents.

3. 3. Defendants created hypothecation viz., hypothecating all amounts owing to and received and/or receivable by the Borrower and or any person on its behalf, all book debts, all cash flows and receivables and proceeds arising from/in connection with lending against credit card receivables and all rights, title, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the Borrower in, to or in respect of all the aforesaid assets including but not limited to the Borrowers cash in hand, both present and future. The Deed of

Hypothecation also covered the Current Assets which also includes whole of the hypothecators stock of raw materials, semi finished and finished goods, consumable stores and spares and such other movables including book debts, bills whether documentary or clean outstanding monies, receivables etc. The Current Assets of the Defendants were hypothecated as and by way of first charge in favour of Security Trustee for the lenders including the Applicant Bank in favour of the applicant, to secure the loan.

4. Despite the undertaking effected by Defendants they had failed to regularise the account and service interest in the account. So the account remained out of order since long time resulting it to be declared as NPA.

5. Despite issuance of letters, personal visits, telephonic conversation and reminders the Defendants have failed to regularise the account. So the Applicant had caused the issuance of lawyer notice to Defendants to pay up the dues with interest.

6. Since defendants failed to make the repayment, the applicant was left with no other alternative other than to file the Transfer Original Application which was presented on 17.12.2012. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 were duly served with the summons for appearance on 22.05.2019. Despite receipt of summons, the defendants did not appear. They had A handwritten signature or mark, possibly initials, located at the bottom right of the page.

remained absent without any representation for them and so, they were set at exparte.

1. 7. The applicant filed an affidavit (Exhibit-19) in lieu of examination in chief through Mr. Kishor Kumbhar, Manager of the bank, had produced documents, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited and were marked as AW-1 to AW-21.

2. 8. Accordingly, the Transfer Original Application was filed for the recovery of Rs.2,10,60,685/- with further interest @ 14.50% p.a. and other expenses for the period from the date of filing of this T.O.A. till payment/realization.

3. 9. As the applicant sought relief only against the Defendant No.1 to 5 and no relief is sought from the Defendant No.6 and 7, no relief is granted against Defendant No.6 & 7.

4. 10. A scrutiny of the averments in the Transfer Original Application and an analysis of the evidence adduced by the applicant, which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted, shows that there is no reason to reject the claim made by the applicant bank.

5. 11. In view of the observations made hereinabove, Transfer Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed.

A handwritten signature, possibly reading 'JL', is written in black ink. It consists of a vertical line on the left, a diagonal line crossing it from top-right to bottom-left, and a horizontal line extending from the bottom of the vertical line to the right.

12. Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

- a. T.O.A. stands allowed with cost and the Defendant No. 1 to 5 are held liable jointly and severally to pay to the Applicant Bank within two months a sum of Rs.2,10,60,685/- with further interest @ 14.50% p.a. and other expenses from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecation and in case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the movable and immovable properties of the Defendants. As the applicant sought relief only against the Defendant No.1 to 5 and no relief is sought from the Defendant No.6 and 7, no relief is granted against Defendant No.6 & 7.

- b. Defendants are directed to declare, on oath, to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Mumbai, both their moveable and immovable assets for the purpose of attachment and sale for realizing the shortfall, if any.

- c. Let a Recovery Certificate be issued with a memo of cost immediately u/s 19(22) of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 together with the details of the properties, if any.

- d. The Defendants are restrained from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank.

- e. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

- f. Give under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this date : 10.04.2026.

(Dictated to my Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and signed by me and pronounced in open forum on 10.04.2026)

Place:- Mumbai Date:- 10.04.2026

Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai (Sreekala Suresh)