Disposed

Asha Sharma v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT16 Mar 2026SA/114/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur considered a securitization application by an applicant claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of mortgaged property. The court directed the respondent bank to set the secured account at the principal outstanding of Rs. 40.85 Lacs and release title documents upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to consider setting account at Rs. 40.85 Lacs principal; to release title documents after payment.

Asha Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 54

¶3

Case No. SA/114/2026

¶4

ASHA SHARMA Vs ICICI BANK LIMITED

¶5

Date: 16.03.2026.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶7

Shri Bhoop Singh Gurjar, Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Shri Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI along with Ms. Priyanka Pareek, Authorized Officer.

¶9

Sh. Nitin Sharma, Power of Attorney Holder of Respondent no. 2 & 3

¶10

In this matter, the counsel for SA applicant submits that they have purchased the property, however, later on they came to know the same is lying mortgaged with the bank. He submits that they are ready and willing to make the payment to the bank, but needs certain concessions. Since, he is a bona fide purchaser, still the counsel for the bank submits that they will not be able to entertain him by giving concession. However, he submits that if any orders are passed, the same will be placed before the competent authority for decision. The counsel for the bank submits that they are also spending money in the excess, still they want to put away this burden from their head.

¶11

In these circumstances, looking into the genuineness and illness of the applicant, the bank is directed to consider setting the account at the principle outstanding which is stated to be Rs. 40.85 Lac. If this amount is acceptable to the bank, the applicant submits that they will make the payment by March end. Looking into this, it is made clear that this consideration is to be made to main housing loan and the insurance loan. After the payment is being made, the bank shall release the original title documents to the SA applicant Smt. Asha Sharma wife of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Koshik.

¶12

This amount applicant shall be entitled to recover from the purchaser and he submits that they have to make a payment of Rs. 9.50 Lac to Sh. Pankaj Sharma which is confirmed by their attorney holder, therefore, they will be only entitle to recover the balance amount. No Dues Certificate shall also be handed over to the applicant herein though it will be in the name of the borrower.

¶13

In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶14

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

In case of any exigency, the applicant is at liberty to move an Misc. Application.

¶17

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

Asha Sharma v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Sharma v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Bholu Ram Meena

Axis Bank versus Ms Goyal Tractors

Ms Shree Nath Enterprises versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Siraj Ahmed Khan

Bank of Baroda versus Parno Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Tamesis Agrobase Private Limited