Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Surjit Singh and Others

DRT10 Aug 2026OA/661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte Original Application filed by ICICI Bank against four defendants. The Tribunal declared the defendants liable to repay Rs. 20,42,340 along with interest and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants liable to pay Rs. 20,42,340 with simple interest at 8% p.a. Enforcement through sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.661/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.08.2026

¶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 at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 and having branches all over India and one of its Branch Offices situated at ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No. 237-238, Sector - 20, Panchkula, Haryana through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Som Nath (Employee No.323601).

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Subeg Singh, R/o Village Koharaka, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran – 143415.

¶10

Sh. Captain Singh S/o Sh. Subeg Singh, R/o Village Koharaka, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran – 143415.

¶11

Sh. Sarabjit Singh Sh. Subeg Singh, R/o Village Koharaka, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran – 143415.

¶12

Sh. Swaran Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o Village Koharaka, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran - 143415.

¶13

……. .Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Devinder, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sherry K Singla, Advocate for the applicant

¶16

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 05.08.2026).

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,42,340.00 (Rupees

¶19

2 OA NO.661/2023 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SH. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

Twenty Lacs Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Parveen Kumar, Authorized Signatory of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 approached the applicant for grant of Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs.15,00,000.00 vide Credit Facility Application Form dated 20.07.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs.14,64,000.00 vide Sanction Letter and Most Important Terms and Condition dated 25.08.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 4 stood as guarantor.

¶23

Defendant nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged their Immovable Property i.e., Total Land measuring 46 Kanal 13 Marla as per Jamabandi for the year 2009-10, situated at Village Koharaka, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran vide Registered Mortgage Deed bearing Vasika No. 462A dated 27.08.2015 and its translation and Declaration u/s 4(1), which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed: Hypothecation Deed, Guarantee Deed, both dated 28.08.2015, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA; Overdue Notice dated 07.07.2022, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which are Annexures A8 & A9 to this OA.

¶25

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.20,42,340.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

3 OA NO.661/2023 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SH. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶27

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.08.2026.

¶28

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Authorized Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶31

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 a pproached applicant for availing of loan facility which was granted to them, defendant no. 4 stood as guarantor 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,42,340.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Forty 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. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00%p.a. with half yearly rests till the realization.

¶32

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, 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 simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan

¶33

4 OA NO.661/2023 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SH. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶34

account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.20,42,340.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 mortgaged property of defendant nos. 1 to 3 i n 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.

¶36

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 25.08.2026. 15. 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.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 10.08.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Surjit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Surjit 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kabal Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Muglani enterprises and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S New Khiala Goods Carrier and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbinder Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Guru Nanak Industry and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohd Sahil and Another