Akshay Gupta & Anr. vs ICICI Bank Limited & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

25 March 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1708 of 2023

Result

Disposed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1122 : 2025 INSC 391

Acts & Sections

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Issue for consideration

The three parties herein are the borrower/flat owners, the builder and the Bank – the lender. There were defaults at the end of each parties. However, same has been settled. Only three small issues have been flagged by the appellants: i) The Bank be directed to remove the word ‘settlement’ used in the loan account statement as it may affect future loan facilities being availed by the appellant; ii) The apartments purchased by the appellants are ready and some minor work remains which the builder may complete forthwith and hand over possession to the appellants; (iii) Another issue raised is that the builder has not issued acknowledgment of the payments made by the appellants pursuant to the order dated 06.11.2024.

Headnote

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – The instant appeal has been preferred u/s.23 of the Act against the common judgment and order dated 02.01.2023 of the NCDRC – In the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Supreme Court, broadly, the settlement had been arrived – In the order dated 06.11.2024 all the terms of the settlement with respect to all the four appeals had been recorded – Only certain issues raised by the appellant has been clarified:

Held: A perusal of the affidavits makes it clear that the terms and conditions undertaken by the three parties has been done satisfactorily – The Bank has also issued certificate stating that nothing further remains – The Bank has no further claim or right whatsoever against the appellants with respect to the facilities provided for the respective apartments – Accordingly, the following directions are issued to clarify the issues flagged by the appellant:

(i) the fact that upfront payment has been made by the borrower/appellants under orders of this Court, this Court is of the view that the loan account should be closed treating it as repaid or fully paid up – The Bank directed to make the necessary incorporations in their records; (ii) let possession of the apartments, fully completed in all respects as required under law, be handed over to the appellants on or before 31.03.2025; (iii) With respect to acknowledgment of the payments, the builder is directed to issue acknowledgment in writing to have received the entire due amount; (iv) the Bank is directed to withdraw the recovery proceedings initiated before the DRT or any other Forum with respect to loan in question of four appellants; (v) Further, appellants directed to withdraw any proceedings initiated before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. [Paras 4, 5, 7, 8]

Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. This is a classic case where wisdom dawned upon the three parties in a commercial arrangement to settle the dispute amicably, of course, with a little effort by the Court. The three parties, being the borrower/flat owners, the builder and the Bank – the lender. Under the agreement between the parties, there were respective obligations on each of the parties to be fulfilled, in which there were defaults at the end of each of the parties to some extent. The present appeals have been preferred under section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the common j

View Subscription Plans →