Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Arunoday Singh

DRT25 Mar 2026OA/267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order by DRT-I, Chandigarh, allowed an application filed by ICICI Bank for the recovery of ₹24,60,135.76 plus interest from a defaulting borrower. The court allowed the sale of the defendant's movable and immovable property to realize dues and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹24,60,135.76 with 10.50% per annum interest; sale of defendant's movable and immovable property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Arunoday Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 267/2025 Date of Institution: 08.02.2025 Date of Decision: 25.03.2026

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at SCO No.132-134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs. Arunoday Singh s/o Sh. Aniruddh Singh r/o 12 R R Grenadiers C O 56 APO, Nabgal Bridge, District Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir. 2nd Address: Newada, Amethi, Musafirkhana, Village Sadiapur, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. ……….Defendant

¶6

Advocates

¶7

Sh. Rahul Garg, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 13.08.2025 .

¶8

OA for the Recovery of ₹24,60,135.76p with interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests from 08.02.2025.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

ICICI Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹24,60,135.76p with interest against Sh. Arunoday Singh (defendant).

¶11

Bank’s case is that on 01.09.2023, it had granted Term Loan of ₹25.00Lacs to defendant for Personal use. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 01.01.2025, a sum of ₹24,60,135.76p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application. 3. On 19.02.2025, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 13.08.2025, he was proceeded ex parte .

¶12

¶13

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-5. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹25.00 Lacs and on 01.01.2025, a sum of ₹24,60,135.76p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹24,60,135.76p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Sixty Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Seventy Six Only) with interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests from 08.02.2025, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 04.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Icici Bank Limited v. Arunoday Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Arunoday 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

Axis Bank versus Ms Gahra Minerals

Prashant Kumar Sinha versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Navtej Singh

Milind Trading Company versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Eco India Paper Products

Mr N Narayana Reddy versus Bank of Maharashtra