Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Satnam Singh and Others

DRT3 Jun 2025OA/1111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. against four respondents for recovery of a loan account declared NPA. The Tribunal ordered payment of the principal amount plus interest at 8% per annum, enforceable via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs.30,26,184.44 with 8% interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Enforcement via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Satnam Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1111/2022 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.05.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2025

¶5

ICICI BANK LTD., Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a banking company within the meaning of Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and is having its registered office at Land Mark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 and Interalia having branch at Gill Market Opposite Bus Stand Ber Sahib Road, Sultanpur Lodhi, Distriict Kapurthala Punjab 144601 through its manager and authorized signatory Mr. Parveen Kumar.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Gajjan Singh R/o Village Sangra, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala Punjab-144626.

¶9

Sh. Nishan Singh S/o Sh. Gajjan Singh R/o Village Sangra, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala Punjab-144626.

¶10

Sh. Gajjan Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh R/o House No.10, Village Sangra, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala Punjab144626.

¶11

Baljinderjit Singh S/o Sh. Karam Singh R/o House No.4, R/o Village Sangra, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala Punjab-144626.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by, Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate proxy for Sh. Himendra Pal Singh, Advocate for Applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.30,26,184.44p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four & Forty Four Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Mr. Parveen Kumar, authorized signatory o f the

¶17

2 OA NO.1111-2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

¶18

applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Farmer Finance Facilities Credit facility application form dated 03.10.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs for the 1^st year and extendable to Rs.29.28 Lacs in the 5^th year vide Sanction letter dated 28.10.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants had mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. total land measuring 113K-03M situated at Village Mand Bhim Kadim, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) & Letter to Sub Registrar for Creation of charge dated 28.10.2015, which are Annexures A6 & A7 this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: - Deed of hypothecation, Deed of Guarantee both dated 28.10.2015, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA; Notice dated 30.12.2021, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Postal receipts dated 31.12.2021, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Statement of accounts, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit Rs.30,26,184.44p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 31.05.2025.

¶21

3 OA NO.1111-2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Mr. Parveen Kumar, authorized signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd., h as been filed.

¶23

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶24

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,26,184.44p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four & Forty Four Paise only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00%p.a. along with penal interest @2.00%p.a. from 28.12.2021 till the realization.

¶26

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. in

¶27

4 OA NO.1111-2022 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

¶28

the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.30,26,184.44p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four & Forty Four Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 19.06.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 03.06.2025.

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶35

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Satnam Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Satnam Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Avtar Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Nirpal Singh

State Bank of India versus Ms. Kirandeep Kaur

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Yogesh Kumar Chawla and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh and Another