ICICI BANK LIMITED vs DEEPAK KADAM on 16 August 2021

JUDGMENT

1. 1) This is an application filed under Section 19 of the DRT Act, 1993, by ICICI Bank Ltd. praying to issue Recovery Certificate against the defendants for an amount of Rs.28,50,731/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty One Only) together with further interest @ 24% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization. The Present OA is initially filled before the DRT-III, Mumbai, on 11/07/2014, however subsequently after the change of jurisdiction same was transferred to this tribunal.

2. 2) Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant bank for granting home loan facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) for purchase of flat situated at D/103, Gokul tower, thakur complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101. Same was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 27/01/2002. The defendants also executed the necessary documents for the said loan. They also executed mortgage of flat D/103, Gokul tower, thakur complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101.

1. 3) However, after availing the aforesaid home loan facility, the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 failed to keep the account in discipline. Therefore, account was declared NPA vide notice dated 01/08/2013. The applicant recalled the entire loan. But after receiving the said notice the defendants neither reply the said notice nor repay the amount. Therefore, the applicant Bank was compelled to file the present OA for recovery of its dues.

2. 4) Notices were issued on present OA. However, despite services no one appeared on behalf of defendants. Therefore, they were set ex-parte vide order dated 12/06/2017.

3. 5) Bank has filed claim affidavit along with relevant documents.

4. 6) I have heard the ex-parte arguments of Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank and perused the material on record.

5. 7) The witness of 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 documents and the

A handwritten signature in blue ink, appearing to be 'Ade' or similar, written in a cursive style.

TOA No. 247 of 2016

witness has fully proved all these documents as against the defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 is joint and several.

1. 8) After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the applicant and upon perusing the record this Tribunal pass the following order:-

ORDER

1. a) I allow the T.O.A. and direct the defendant nos. 1 & 2 to pay within a period of 30 days to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.28,50,731/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty One Only) together with further interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization.

2. b) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the properties of defendant nos. 1 and 2 which were mortgage situated at D/103, Gokul tower, thakur complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101, and also from the sale of other assets of the defendant nos. 1 and 2.

3. c) Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with their properties, till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

d) The defendant 1 & 2 also shall pay costs incurred by the applicant bank in filing the above Original Application including professional fees and other expenses.

e) The Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Mumbai.

f) Copy of this Judgment and Recovery Certificate be sent to all the parties as per rules.

Place: Mumbai. Date : 13^th August, 2021.

(Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar ) Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.