Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Karamdeep Singh and Another

DRT9 Sept 2026OA/760/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debut Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by ICICI Bank against two borrowers for recovery of a defaulted Kisan Credit Card loan. The bank sought Rs. 24,15,917.95. The Tribunal, noting the nature of the mortgaged property and market conditions, reduced the claimed interest rate from 11.60% to 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Applicant declared entitled to recover Rs. 24,15,917.95 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. and costs. Recovery to be enforced from sale of mortgaged property or personal assets. Issuance of Recovery Cert

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Karamdeep Singh and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.760/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 09.09.2026

¶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., District Patiala, Punjab through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Jatinder Mishra.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Karamdeep Singh S/o Sh. Gurtej Singh, R/o Village Guthmara, District Patiala - 147111, Punjab.

¶10

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Gurtej Singh, R/o Village Guthmara, District Patiala - 147111, Punjab.

¶11

…….. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Gurnam Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 07.09.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.24,15,917.95 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen and Paise Ninety Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Signatory of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney, dated 08.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.760/2026 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SH. KARAMDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs.23,00,000.00 vide Credit Facility Application Form, dated 17.04.2018, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs.21,50,000.00 vide Sanction Letter, dated 23.04.2018, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his Immovable Property i.e., Total Agriculture Land measuring 28B 16B, as per Jamabandi for the year of 2014-2015, situated at Village Guthmara, Tehhsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala, vide Request Letter for creation of charge on land in revenue records and Declaration u/s 4(1), dated 25.04.2018, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Hypothecation Deed, dated 25.04.2018, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Recall Notice, dated 12.08.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶22

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.24,15,917.95, 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.

¶23

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.09.2026.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Signatory, ICICI Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

3 OA NO.760/2026 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SH. KARAMDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶26

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

¶27

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of loan facility which was granted to them 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.24,15,917.95 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen and Paise Ninety Five 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.

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.60%p.a., with half yearly rests till the realization.

¶29

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

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.24,15,917.95 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen

¶31

4 OA NO.760/2026 ICICI BANK LTD. VS SH. KARAMDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

and Paise Ninety Five 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 no. 1 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 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 21.09.2026. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 09.09.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶33

Presiding Officer,

¶34

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Karamdeep Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Karamdeep Singh and Another

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

Bank of India versus Anil Kumar and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bansal Enterprises and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Avtar Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Gurinderpal Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Lord Krishna Hosiery and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Another