Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Yadwinder Singh and Others

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/1238/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of Rs. 25,19,412.50 from three defendants. The Tribunal granted the applicant uniform simple interest at 8% per annum instead of the claimed 24% and ordered recovery from mortgaged or hypothecated assets, or attachment of personal assets if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared liable to pay Rs. 25,19,412.50 with simple interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate ordered; Recovery enforceable via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Yadwinder Singh and Others — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1238/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.03.2026

¶6

ICICI Bank Ltd. a Body Corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and having its Registered Office near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara- 390007 and its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051 and having branches all over India and one of its branch offices situated at SCO no. 132134, Sector 9C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory, Sh. Jatinder Mishra.

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Yadwinder Singh, S/o Sh. Bachittar Singh, R/o Ward no. 9, Village Bhusse (171), District Tarn Taran, Punjab- 143107

¶10

Sh. Arshbir Singh, S/o Sh. Bachittar Singh, R/o Ward no. 9, Village Bhusse (171), District Tarn Taran, Punjab- 143107

¶11

Smt. Paramjit Kaur, W/o Sh. Bachittar Singh, R/o Ward no. 9, Village Bhusse (171), District Tarn Taran, Punjab- 143107

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 12.03.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.25,19,412.50 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Twelve and Paise Fifty only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorised Signatory of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application as per Power of Attorney dated 08.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the bank for availing KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Credit Facility Application Form dated 03.12.2021 ,which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

2 OA NO.1238/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS. YADWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.22.50 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 09.12.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Land measuring 81K 17M situated at Village Bhuse, Hadbast no. 171, Tehsil Chabal Kalan, District Tarn Taran, Punjab vide Declaration us/ 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and Letter dated 07.01.2022, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed : Hypothecation Deed, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 13.06.2024 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Accounts, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 5. The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.25,19,412.50 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Twelve and Paise Fifty only) which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶21

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 12.03.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorised Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned 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 A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the KCC Limit facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. 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

¶22

3 OA NO.1238/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS. YADWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶23

NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25,19,412.50 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Twelve and Paise Fifty only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶24

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with half yearly rests w.e.f 30.04.2025 till the realization.

¶25

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/hypothecated assets, 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 @08.00%p.a. in 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.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,19,412.50 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Twelve and Paise Fifty only) jointly and severally with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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 assets/mortgaged property 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.

¶27

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

4 OA NO.1238/2025

¶30

ICICI BANK LTD. VS. YADWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.04.2026.

¶32

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 .

¶34

Dated: 27.03.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Yadwinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Yadwinder 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Narinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Babu Lal and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Jasvir Singh since deceased through his Lrs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Banarasi Lal and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohinder Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sukhbir Kaur and Others