Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh

DRT3 Jun 2026OA/1655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a term loan default. The defendant failed to file a written statement. The Tribunal reduced the claimed interest from 24% to 8% p.a. and directed the issue of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; defendant liable to pay Rs. 40,40,968.04 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1655/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.12.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2026

¶6

ICICI Bank Limited, 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 at ICICI Bank Tower, 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 132-133-134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Authorized Signatory, Sh. Jatinder Mishra.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Dalwar Singh R/o 228 Urban Estate, Phase no. 3, Near Radio Station, Falauli, Patiala, Punjab – 147002;

¶9

2nd Address: Darshana Villa, Line no. 3, Ramsharan Colony, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, Punjab-140603;

¶10

3rd Address: Principal, Delhi Public School, Pathankot-Amritsar Highway, Jhako Lahri, Pathankot, Punjab-145001.

¶11

.……Defendant

¶12

Advocate:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Shubham Pabbi, Advocate proxy for Sh. Himendra Pal Singh, Advocate for Applicant

¶14

Sh. Jashan Mehta, Advocate for Defendant (through VC)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.40,40,968.04 (Rupees Forty Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Paise Four only). The

¶17

¶18

OA/1655/2025 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS SH. PARMINDER JEET SINGH

¶19

Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Manager , of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 08.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.45.00 Lacs for purchase of Vehicle, vide Credit Facility Application Form dated 14.11.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.44,91,917.00 for purchase of Vehicle and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his vehicle that’s TOYOTA Fortuner SIGMA 4 LEGENDER (AT) bearing Registration No. PB21H0001, Make TOYOTA Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Engine No. 1GDA762180, Chassis No. MBJBA3FSX00848413~1023, vide Hypothecation Agreement dated 14.11.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Copy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Documents executed : Loan Recall Notice dated 10.10.2025, which are Annexure A5 (colly) to this OA; Statement of Account with Certificate, which is Annexure A6 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.40,40,968.04 (Rupees Forty Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Paise Four only), which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal and after the service of summons, Sh. Jashan Mehta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of defendant and filed his Power of Attorney on 04.02.2026. Paper Book was supplied to the counsel for defendant on 14.02.2026. Thereafter, no WS was filed on behalf of defendant within stipulated period and opportunity to file WS by defendant was closed and defense was struck of vide order dated 29.05.2026.

¶21

¶22

OA/1655/2025 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS SH. PARMINDER JEET SINGH

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments of learned proxy counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for defendant appeared, through video conferencing, but he did not advance any argument on OA. Perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant, that opportunity to file WS by defendant was closed and defense was struck of, It was further argued that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the Term Loan, which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.40,40,968.04 (Rupees Forty Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Paise Four only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24.00% p.a. from 27.10.2025 till the realization. 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 hypothecated vehicle, undertaking of the defendant, 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

¶25

¶26

OA/1655/2025 ICICI BANK LIMITED VS SH. PARMINDER JEET SINGH

¶27

appropriate to grant 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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.40,40,968.04 (Rupees Forty Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and Paise Four only), 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 vehicle of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.06.2026 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 03.06.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Parminder Jeet 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sanjay and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Vishkarma Roadways and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Inderjit Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. GURDHian Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Pipal Singh and Others