Dismissed

Jatinder Pal Singh Kharbanda v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT25 Feb 2026SA/8/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act matter, the DRT-II, Delhi held that repeated issuances of demand notices without cause were unauthorized. The application was dismissed as infructuous following the bank's withdrawal, but the bank was ordered to bear all litigation costs incurred.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous. Bank to bear all litigation costs and legal expenses from officials involved.

Jatinder Pal Singh Kharbanda versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi

¶2

s,.l8l2o2s JATINDER PAL SINGH KHARBANDA Vs ICICI BANK LIMITED

2s.02.2026

Item no. 55

Present:

Mr. Rajinder Wali, counsel for applicant. Mr. Rachit Bigghe, counsel for respondent bank.

¶7

Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that the respondent has withdrawn all the SARFAESI Action including the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the SA has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

¶9

On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent bank has issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act three times and has withdrawn all the SARFAESI Action three times and therefore, this is the misuse of the provisions contained under the SARFAESI Act. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that he has power to withdrawn the SARFAESI Action at any time.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent bank may be restrained from issuing any subsequent SARFAESI Action.

¶11

Heard the Ld. Counselfor both the parties and perused the record.

¶12

It admitted that the respondent bank has taken three times the actions under provisions of the SARFAESI Act and has withdrawn the same without ags1gling a reason. Therefore, the $t

¶13

cost of the litigation and other charges shall not be debited from the account of the applicant and the applicant will not be liable to pay the charges of the legal expenses incurred into the demand notice issued three times. As the demand notice has been withdrawn, this Tribunal has no authority to direct the respondent bank to restrain from taken SARFAESI Action in future. If, the bank issue any subsequent SARFAESI Action, the applicant may make such point as a defense and the court will consider the same in accordance with law.

¶14

In view of the above, the SA No.g/2025 is liable to be dismissed as infructuous but the cost of the litigation incurred in the issuing of the demand notice and other SARFAESI Action shall not be debited from the account of the applicant and the same shall be recovered from the officials of the bank, who has issued the wrong demand notice and subsequent SARFAESI Action.

¶15

File be consigned to record room.

¶16

SJ (susHrl KTJMAR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi

Jatinder Pal Singh Kharbanda v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Pal Singh Kharbanda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases