Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Karnail Singh and Others

DRT15 Apr 2026OA/965/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of an agricultural loan defaulting at Rs.34.69 lakhs. The court granted recovery of principal with simple interest at 08.00% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate and execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.34,69,303.63 with simple interest @08.00% p.a. Issuance of Recovery Certificate and liberty to enforce through sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Karnail Singh and Others — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.965/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 15.04.2026

¶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 Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara- 390007, and its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 and having branches all over India and one of its branch offices situated at Plot No. 143-A, City Emporium, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002, through its Authorized Signatory, Sh. Jatinder Mishra.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Karnail Singh S/o Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, R/o H. No.77, Basti Shame Wali, Jogewala Makhu, District Ferozepur, Punjab- 142044

¶10

Smt. Sukhbir Kaur W/o Sh. Karnail Singh, R/o H. No.77, Basti Shame Wali, Jogewala Makhu, District Ferozepur, Punjab- 142044

¶11

Sh. Jagdev Singh S/o Sh. Kajar Singh, R/o Sheikh Manga, Gidder Pindi, Kapurthala, Sultanpur Lodhi, Punjab- 144629

¶12

…..…Defendants

¶13

Advocate:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2026)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.34,69,303.63 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Three and Paise Sixty Three only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Legal Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute

¶18

¶19

OA NO.965/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

the Original Application as per Power of Attorney dated 08.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no. 1 and 2 approached the bank for availing KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Credit Application Form dated 15.09.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant No. 3 stood as Guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 21.10.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 40K-0M situated at Village Jogewala, Sub Tehsil Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, Punjab, vide Declaration u/s 4(1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations & Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act 1978, dated 21.10.2015, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. Documents executed : Loan cum Hypothecation Deed dated 28.10.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Terms and conditions of sanction for Agriculture Loan dated 01.04.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Deed of Guarantee, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 03.04.2025, with postal receipts, which are Annexures A8 to A10 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. 5. The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs.34,69,303.63, 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. 6. 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 07.04.2026.

¶22

¶23

OA NO.965/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Authorized Signatory, of the applicant bank h as been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the 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, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,69,303.63 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Three and Paise Sixty Three 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 pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest @18.00% p.a. from 19.03.2025 till the realization.

¶26

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/hypothecated assets, 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 @08.00% 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.

¶27

¶28

OA NO.965/2025 ICICI BANK LTD. VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,69,303.63 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Three and Paise Sixty Three only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% 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 hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants 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.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 05.05.2026

¶33

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: 15.04.2026.

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Karnail Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sh. Karnail 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

Bank of India versus Sh. Bakhshish Singh And Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Saranjit Kaur and Others

Bank of India versus Sh. Surinder Singh and Another

Bank of India versus M/s Estofers Enterprises LLP and Others

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Nirbhay Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S R S Engg Works and Another