Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S New Athwal Clinic

DRT28 Aug 2026OA/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank’s application for recovery of ₹25.76L plus interest. Finding proof via affidavit and documents, the court ordered joint and several liability and directed issue of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹25.76L with interest allowed; joint and several liability imposed; Recovery Certificate issued; future appearance fixed.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S New Athwal Clinic — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 33/2025 Date of Institution: 17.12.2024 Date of Decision: 28.08.2026

¶4

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

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s New Athwal Clinic, through its proprietor, Main Bazar, Ghoman, Tehsil Batala, District-Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

Jatinder Pal Kaur w/o Sh. Gurbir Singh, Proprietor M/s New Athwal Clinic, r/o Old Bazar, Village and Post Office Ghoman, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Sunil Salhotra proxy counsel for Sh. Rahul Garg, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 18.07.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹25,76,581.80p with interest @15% per annum with monthly rests from 17.12.2024.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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 ₹25,76,581.80p with interest against M/s New Athwal Clinic and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 14.03.2022, it had granted a loan of ₹25.00Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 in the form of Term Loan for personal purpose. The loan was chargeable to interest @15% per annum with monthly rests. On 16.10.2024, a sum of ₹25,76,581.80p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

¶18

On 16.01.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 18.07.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mohd. Vajid, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-6. 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 16.10.2024, a sum of ₹25,76,581.80p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹25,76,581.80p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighty One and Paise Eighty Only) with interest @15% per annum with monthly rests from 17.12.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 29.09.2026. 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 28.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S New Athwal Clinic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. M/S New Athwal Clinic

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 Smt. Arati Nag

Punjab National Bank versus Ajay Kumar

Canara Bank versus T Venkateshappa

Canara Bank versus Shanti Trading Company Prop Biswajit Sarkar

M/s Suraj Traders Through Its Prop Shrawan Jaleshwar Prasad versus Canara Bank

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Gauri Shankar