Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sharmila Singh

DRT24 Dec 2025TA/269/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the bank sought recovery of an NPA loan. The Tribunal allowed the application against the borrower and guarantor (Rejecting the third defendant's claim that sale of the property relieved them of liability) and awarded the principal plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Directly respondent nos. 1-3 to pay Rs. 16,52,292 along with cost and interest @ 7.75% issued recovery certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sharmila Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Beforc SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribuna!-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.269 OF 2022

¶3

ICICI BANK UMITED VS SHARMILA SINGH & ORS

¶4

Reserved on : O1.12.2O25

¶5

Pronounced on = 24.L2.2O25

ICICI Bank Limited

-APPlicant bank

Vs.

Sharmila Singh

¶10

Vidhya PatiSingh

¶11

Neelam Vihar Sahakari Awas Samiti^Ltd

¶12

Raj Kumari

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Present: Mr. Bikas Kumar, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

¶15

Defendant nos.l & 2 are expafte,^since, L3.L2.2024.

¶16

Defendant no.3 is exparte,^since, 22.0s.2025.

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 16.01.2015 through^{Mr. Sandeep} Sharma, Authorized Representative of the^applicant ban( under Section 19 of the RDB Act,^{1993 against} the defendants for recovery of a sum of^{Rs.16,52,2921'} together with cost, charges and^{pendentellite and} future interest @24olo from date of^filing of^{this O.A. till} the realization in full.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the^request of the defendant nos.l & 2, the applicant^bank sanctioned a Home Loan Facility of^{Rs.8,25,616/-on} 24.05.2007 for^purchase of Flat No.117, First^Floor, Neelam Vihar Sahakari Awas Simiti,^Sector-14, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad-2010!! is being developed, 9r

¶20

¶21

TANO.269of 2022

¶22

constructed and sold by defendant no.3 to defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 is a member of the defendant no.3 and an allotment letter dated 22.05.2007 was issued by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1. The said loan was^granted against the mortgage of the aforesaid propefi. The defendant no.3 had issued a letter dated 22.05.2007 to the applicant wherein and whereby the defendant no.3^granted permission to the applicant to moftgage aforesaid property.

¶23

It is further submifted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to mainbin the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 30.03.2012 to the defendants but failed to recover the same. Thus, the^present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶24

On notice by this Tribunal, defendant nos.l to 4 put appearance through counsel and filed written statement but failed to file evidence. Thereafter, the defendants failed to put appearance in the matter and the defendant nos. 1 & 2 were^proceeded against exparte on L3.L2.2024 and defendant no.3 was proceeded against exparte on 22.05.2025.

¶25

The defendant no.4 has filed application for impleadment in the present matter which was allowed vide order dated 08.06.2015. It is submifted that defendant no.4 Raj Kumari is the owner and in

S.\

TA NO. 269 of 2022

possession of the subject property and^purchased the same from Neelam Vihar Sahakari Awas Simiti^Ltd. on 02.08.2007 and^paid the entire consideration of Rs.19,50,000/- to the defendant no.3. The defendant no.3 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant^no.4 before the Sub Registrar on 14.12.2008.^{It is submitted} that on 17.07.20t2 the applicant bank^affixed possession notice at the subject property of the defendant no.4 in the name of Sharmila Singh^and Vidya Pati Singh. The defendant^no.4 approached^the applicant bank and appraised the^{true and correct facts} and requested them to withdraw the^{notice. But the} officials of applicant bank did not^{paid any heed to the} request of the defendant no.4, therefore,^{they filed the} application for impleadmentⁱⁿ the^{presentmatter. It is} also submitted that the defendant^{no.4 has filed SA} before the DRT Lucknow on 10.09.2015^against applicant bank, Mrs. Sharmila Singh,^{Sh. MdyaPati} Singh, defendant no.3 and^{Nainital Bank Ltd. and the} matter is subjudice before Ld. DRT^Lucknow.

¶30

The applicant bank has filed^{evidence by way of} affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Sharma,^Authorized Representative of the applicant bank^{as Paper No.1 to} Paper No. 117 which have^gone unchallenged^{and un-} rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant^{bank stands} fully established against the defendants^{with respect to} nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶31

Heard the Ld. counsel for applicant bank^and perused the record.

¶32

The main contention of the applicant bank^is that the defendant no.1 & 2 has taken the loan for^purchase of the flat no.LL7 , first floor, Neelam^{Vihar Sehkari Awas} SamiU, Sector-l4, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad.^The e,\

¶33

TA NO. 269 of 2022

¶34

¶35

defendant no.l & 2 has also submitted the allotment letter dated 22.05.2007 issued by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.3 granted permission to the applicant to mortgage the above flat and it was further assured that if the agreement of sell executed between defendant^no.3 and defendant no.l is terminated or othenarise the flat premises transaction is cancelled, then the applicant bank shall have the^priority over the sum or sum of money advanced to the defendant no.1 and^paid to the defendant no.3. The defendant no.3 also undertook^to refund the money to the applicant bank^without demure. It is submitted that defendant no.1 &^{2 has} failed to repay the dues and therefore, the^{account of} defendant no.1 & 2 has become^{NPA and} the^demand notice was sent to the defendant no.1 & 2.^{But the} defendant no.1 & 2 has not^paid the^{amount,therefore,} the defendant no.l to 3 are^liable to^{pay the dues of} the bank. The defendant no.4 has appeared and^has moved an application for impleadment as^defendant and submitted that the defendant^{no.3 has sold the flat} to defendant no.4 vide sale deed dated^14.12.2008. Therefore, the applicant bank has^produced any evidence that the said flat has not been sold^to defendant no.4. Therefore, it is clear that^{the flat which} has been mo@aged with the applicant has^already been sold to the defendant no.4 by defendant^no.3. Therefore, the defendant no.4 is the bonafide purchaser of the flat. As per condition which has been mentioned by the applicant in his application at^page no.7 para no.5 (v) if the allotment is cancelled, the defendant no.3 is liable to refund the money to the bank. From^perusal of the record it is clear that allotment of defendant no.l has been cancelled and the qA

¶36

¶37

TA NO. 269 of 2022

¶38

same flat has been sold to defendant no.4, therefore, the defendant no.3 is liable to refund the amount received from the defendant no.1. Therefore, the present OA is liable to be allowed against defendant no.1 to 3 but the applicant bank cannot^proceed against the flat which has already been sold to defendant^no.4.

¶39

L After^perusing the records, this Tribunal^is of the view that the applicant bank has^{proved its case beyond} reasonable doubts against defendant no.1 to 3.^The evidence and documents filed by the^{applicant bank not} rebutted by the defendants by not^{placing any evidence} and there is no^question of disbelieving^{the evidence} and documents filed by the applicant^{bank based upon} the written/printed documents.

¶40

In the light of the above discussions, the^{present T.A.} deserves to be allowed.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

I hereby allow this T.A. of the^{Applicant Bank and} direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to^{pay jointly and} severally to the applicant bank within 30 days^from todan a sum of Rs.16,52,2921' along^{with cost,} expenses and interest @ 7.75o/o from^{the date of filing} of this O.A. which has become^{T.A Ull the date of} realization.

¶43

In case of failure to deposit the above^amount within the stipulated^period, the same shall^be recovered from the sale of^personal movable^and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1 to 3.

¶44

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and^be sent to Recovery fficer, DebE Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi. d..

¶45

TA NO. 269 of 2022

¶46

¶47

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the^parties.

¶48

Parties are directed to appear before the^Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 24.02.2026.^Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶49

File be consigned to records.

¶50

Date :24.12.2025

¶51

! €)' (susHrl KUPrffiffi' "^x- PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶52

This^judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶53

Date:24.12.2025

¶54

9\ t- (susHIL rum-an nnsrtjci^j PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Icici Bank Limited v. Sharmila Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sharmila Singh

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