Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Satwant Singh

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/73/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirms the recovery of a term loan amount of ₹32,01,103/- by ICICI Bank Limited against non-paying defendants under the RDB Act, 1993. The court allowed the application after the defendants failed to appear and issued a recovery certificate for the sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Incurred the principal sum of ₹32,01,103/- with interest; issued a recovery certificate for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

Icici Bank Limited versus Satwant Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 73/2022 Date of Institution: 29.12.2021 Date of Decision: 19.02.2026

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at SCO 143, A City Emporium Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

¶7

Satwant Singh s/o Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, r/o Village Jhamke, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, Punjab.

¶8

Sharanjeet Kaur, r/o Village Hawelia, Chamba Kalan, District Taran Tarn, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Ms. Dipti Toni, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 20.01.2026 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹32,01,103/- with interest @10.26% per annum with monthly rests from 29.12.2021.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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 ₹32,01,103/- with interest against Sh. Satwant Singh and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 18.02.2019, it had granted a loan of ₹33.64Lacs to the defendants in the form of Term Loan for Vehicle purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated his vehicle bearing Registration No. PB02DT6667 (fully detailed in para No.5.2 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.26% per annum with monthly rests. On 09.09.2021, a sum of ₹32,01,103/was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

On 28.04.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶17

¶18

put in appearance. Vide order dated 20.01.2026, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Mohammad Vajid, Legal Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-9.
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
₹33.64 Lacs and on 09.09.2021, a sum of ₹32,01,103/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹32,01,103/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs One Thousand One Hundred
Three Only) with interest @10.26% per annum with monthly rests from
29.12.2021, 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 hypothecated vehicle fully detailed in para
No.5.2 of the application as well as from the 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
01.04.2026,who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
hypothecated vehicle 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 parties.
Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 19.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Icici Bank Limited v. Satwant Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Satwant 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Sh. Dalip Singh @ Daleep Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Manimahesh Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.

Federal Bank versus Priyanka Saha and Anr.

Jagmohan Ladhar versus M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Baltar Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar