The case involved Akshay Gupta &Ors. (appellants/flat owners) against ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. (respondents/bank and builder), stemming from consumer complaints rejected by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The core issue revolved around loan recall notices from the bank, alleging unfair trade practices and violations of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, and various defaults by all parties involved in a flat purchase arrangement. Ultimately, the Court facilitated an amicable settlement between the flat owners, the builder, and the bank, outlining specific payment arrangements for outstanding principal and interest, including waivers and discounts from the bank and contributions from the builder. The judgment confirms the successful compliance with the settlement terms and provides final directions for closing the loan accounts, handing over property possession, and withdrawing related legal proceedings, bringing the long-standing litigation to an end.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(r), 23 – Consumer – Loan recall notice by bank – Relief claimed in the complaints before the NCDRC was for quashing of the loan recall notice issued by the Bank alleging unfair trade practices and violation of Reserve Bank of India[RBI] guidelines – Complaint dismissed by NCDRC – Amicable settlement of dispute by the three parties with a little effort by the Court – Full compliance of the terms and conditions undertaken by the three parties has been done satisfactorily – The Bank had extended the discounts, the builder had discharged its obligations of payment of its share of pre-EMI and the borrowers had discharged their obligations by making the deposits with the Bank of the outstanding amount and also paying to the builder the 5% of the sale consideration which was outstanding – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that upfront payment has been made by the borrower/appellants under orders of this Court, the loan account should be closed treating it as repaid or fully paid up – Learned counsel appearing for the builder, upon instruction, stated that the possession would be handed over on or before 31.03.2025 – This takes care of the second issue raised – The third issue raised is only formal – 8. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: –
- i) The Bank will accordingly make the necessary incorporations in their records, as noted above.
- ii) As stated by learned counsel for the builder, 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 the third issue, the amount having been paid by the appellants to the builder by way of Bank transfer, even if no receipt is issued, the proof of payment is certified by the Bank, but still, the builder is directed to issue acknowledgment in writing to have received the entire due amount.
- iv) One last thing which remains is that the Bank, which had initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or before any other Forum with respect to the loan in question of the four appellants, shall forthwith withdraw the same, in view of the loan having been satisfied in all the four cases.
- v) Further, appellant or any other appellant who had initiated proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority shall withdraw such cases.
Thus, all matters between the parties stand closed and there shall be complete quietus to the litigation.
(Para 4 to 9)
Akshay Gupta & Ors. V. Icici Bank Limited & Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 391: (DoJ 25-03-2025)
