Appeal No. 473 of 2014. Case: R.N. Gupta Technical Educational Society and Ors. Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberAppeal No. 473 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate and For Respondents: Punit Bhalla, Advocate
JudgesRanjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
CitationIV (2015) BC 118 (DRAT)
Judgement DateJuly 09, 2015
CourtDelhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)


Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)

  1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal below in allowing the OA filed by the respondent ICICI Bank, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The respondent-Bank had filed the OA for recovery of Rs. 21,19,933/- with costs and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till realization.

  2. This is a case where the appellant No. 1 had approached the Bank for loan facility for purchase of office equipments against their hypothecation. The Bank had accordingly granted financial assistance of Rs. 25.97,700/-, Rs. 5,08,144/- and Rs. 50,01,500/- in three different accounts. The appellants had agreed to repay the same in separate 24 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 1,25,692/-, Rs. 24,640/- and Rs. 2,39,947/- respectively in three different accounts. Appellant No. 2 Mr. Devender Gupta stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount.

  3. The Bank has alleged that the appellants failed to maintain the financial discipline and defaulted on payment of the amount. Once the appellants failed to regularize the accounts and had only paid 15, 15 and 23 instalments respectively, the instalments became overdue. The Bank had then sent three separate legal notices calling upon appellant No. 1 to pay the outstanding amount. It is in this manner a sum of Rs. 21,19,933/- besides interest was claimed in the OA filed by the Bank.

  4. In their written statement, the appellants urged that the Bank had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts. The appellants would allege that they had furnished Fixed Deposit of Rs. 10 lacs on March 3, 2007 which was to carry interest. This FDR was lien towards the loan account No. LODEL00009689023. There was yet another FDR for Rs. 3,10.585. The appellants had also urged that 16 instalments were paid in respect of two loan accounts and only 8 instalments were due in respect of account No. LODEL000011889075 amounting to Rs. 10,07,696/-. Another sum of Rs. 1,97,120 was due in third account No. LODEL00011890981 and no amount was due in the first account noted above. As per the appellant, at the best, the Bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 12,04,816/-. Plea is that the Bank could return the cheques which were not paid 7 dishonoured and a sum of Rs. 13,10,585/- lying with the Bank since 2007 be returned with interest. As per the appellants, the Bank thus was not entitled to recover any further amount. As per...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT