Holding

The Court held that the settlement was fully complied with, the loan account should be treated as repaid, the bank must delete ‘settlement’ from its records, the builder must deliver possession by 31 March 2025 and issue payment acknowledgment, and all recovery proceedings must be withdrawn.

Summary

The appellants, who were flat buyers, entered into a settlement with ICICI Bank and the builder to resolve disputes over loan repayment and possession of apartments. Under the settlement, the appellants paid the outstanding principal and pre‑EMI amounts, the builder contributed its share, and the bank waived interest and charges. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeals under section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, found that all parties had complied with the settlement terms and that the bank had issued a certificate of no further dues. The Court ordered the bank to delete the word “settlement” from the loan account statement and treat the account as fully repaid, to withdraw all recovery proceedings, and to issue a No‑Objection Certificate. It also directed the builder to hand over possession of the apartments by 31 March 2025 and to provide a written acknowledgment of the payments received. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of and the litigation brought to a close.

Issues considered

The bank should remove the term ‘settlement’ from the loan account statement to avoid prejudice to the appellants’ future borrowing.
The builder must hand over possession of the completed apartments to the appellants by 31 March 2025.
The builder must issue a written acknowledgment of the payments made by the appellants under the settlement.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 23

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

SettlementCommercial arrangement to settle the disputeSection 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986Recovery proceedingsPossession of apartmentsLoan accountAcknowledgment of payment

Judgment

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

Akshay Gupta & Anr.
v.
ICICI Bank Limited & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1708 of 2023)
25 March 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.]

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.

Headnotes†
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

* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1123

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

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]

List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

List of Keywords
Settlement; Commercial arrangement to settle the dispute; Section 23
of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Recovery proceedings; Possession
of apartments; Loan account; Acknowledgment of payment.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1708 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2023 of the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC
No. 63 of 2020
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 1709, 2828 and 4336 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Gupta, Ms. Raghavi Shukla,
Ms. Sonali Jain, Alakh Alok Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondents:
K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Vishesh Kalra, Ms. Smriti Churiwal,
Ms. Sonia Sharma, Ms. Anoushka Deo, Sumit Goel, Ms. Sreeparna
Basak, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini,
Ms. Garima Khanna, Viraj Kadam, Soumya Dutta, Siddhant
Upmanyu, Rahul Kumar, M/s. D.S.k. Legal.
1124 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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 judgment and order dated 02.01.2023
passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission1
rejecting the consumer complaints of the appellants (Flat buyers).
The 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 India2 guidelines.
2. We need not mention detailed facts as the same have been
appropriately recorded in two orders of this Court dated 23.10.2024
and 06.11.2024. In the order dated 23.10.2024, broadly, the settlement
had been arrived at, however, instructions were to be taken on
certain issues, for which time was granted. Finally, in the order
dated 06.11.2024 all the terms of the settlement with respect to all
the four appeals had been recorded. Both the orders as such are
reproduced hereunder: -
“O R D E R (DATED : 23.10.2024)
1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the ICICI Bank
Ltd. (for short, ‘the Bank’) has submitted a chart showing
the outstanding amount payable by the appellants as on
16.10.2024. The details of which are as under:

1 NCDRC
2 RBI
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1125

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

Case No. Outstanding Total Interest Outstanding Total
Principal including Charges Receivable
(INR) PEMI (INR) (INR) (INR) As on
16.10.2024
CA 1,26,35,131.00 57,09,527.00 29,71,443.33 2,13,16,101.33
1708/2023
Akshay &
Anr. vs. ICICI
Bank Ltd. &
Ors.
CA 1,85,38,453.00 71,79,478.00 31,44,604.73 2,88,62,535.73
4336/2023
Muringassril
Jacob
Kuruvilla &
Anr. vs. ICICI
Bank Ltd. &
Ors
CA 1,66,55,259.00 64,68,114.00 27,47,829.65 2,58,71,202.65
2828/2023
Jignesh
Tapiawala &
Anr. vs. ICICI
Bank Ltd. &
Ors.

2. Insofar as the appellants in three appeals mentioned
in the table are concerned, the appellants have agreed
to settle the outstanding principal amount upfront subject
to certain adjustments under which they would be entitled
to benefits from the Bank as also the Builder - Rajsanket
Realty Ltd. (for short, ‘the Builder).
3. Mr. Ritin Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Bank, upon instructions, submits that the Bank would
completely waive the outstanding charges and will give
a discount of 30% on the pre-EMI provided the entire
outstanding principal amount is settled upfront and
the remaining pre-EMI amount is also paid within any
reasonable time granted by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
30% discount, which the Bank has extended on the pre-EMI
amount, should be credited to the benefit of the appellants
and as the Builder has agreed to pay 50% of the pre-EMI
amount, the same would be paid by the Builder either to
1126 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the appellants and thereafter the appellants may transfer
it to the Bank or the Builder may directly deposit with the
Bank subject to directions being issued to the Bank to
accept the same from the Builder in the loan account of
the appellants.
5. A further request has been made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2828 of
2024 and 4336 of 2023 that the appellants have paid certain
amount towards pre-EMI, after the Builder defaulted in
making the said payments, and as such the 5% outstanding
amount, which they have to pay to the Builder towards club
charges and other balance consideration, the same may
be waived or the Builder may be asked to pay the said
amount under the head of pre-EMI, which the appellants
have paid to the Bank.
6. Learned counsel for the Builder upon instructions has
agreed to pay 50% of the outstanding pre-EMI. It is further
directed that the learned counsel appearing for the Builder
may obtain instructions as to whether the Builder would
prefer to waive the 5% outstanding sale consideration or get
the amount of pre-EMI paid by the appellants to the Bank
adjusted against the said 5% balance sale consideration.
7. In Civil Appeal 1709 of 2023, it is stated that the
appellants have already settled the matter with the Bank
and as the Bank has already received its entire settlement
amount, it would issue NOC upon closure of the present
pending appeal.
8. Two issues which survive in Civil Appeal No.1709
of 2023 is between the Builder and the appellants. As,
according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
appellants have also paid certain amount towards pre-EMI
against the default of the Builder, and have also paid the
outstanding pre-EMI on the date of the settlement after
receiving 30% discount from the Bank, and would like an
adjustment and/or paid by the Builder of both the amounts
of pre-EMI against the balance 5% sale consideration to be
paid to the Builder. On this aspect also, learned counsel
appearing for the Builder, shall obtain instructions.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1127

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

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants will provide
the details to the Builder about the pre-EMI amount paid
by the appellants to the Bank, within a week from today,
so that the Builder may obtain instructions on the same.
10. Whatever be the outcome of 5% sale consideration
and the additional pre-EMI paid by the appellants, the
same will not come in the way of the closure of these
appeals and the decision of this Court will be final and
binding on the parties.
11. In the meantime, the appellants will continue with the
process and start making the payment to the Bank towards
the outstanding principal amount as also the outstanding
pre-EMI amount, which the Bank, after calculating the
interest upto 15.11.2024 and 30.11.2024, intimate to the
respective parties within a week from today.
12. List these matters on 06.11.2024 for consideration of-
(i) whether the amounts have been duly communicated
or not;
(ii) clarification on the issue of 5% additional pre-EMI
payment between the appellants and the builder and
payment of pre-EMI of the defaulted amount and the
outstanding amount.

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

ORDER
(DATED 06.11.2024)
1. A detailed order was passed on 23rd October, 2024
granting time to the parties to provide necessary details
and also obtain instructions.
2. Today, ICICI the Bank has produced the chart of the
outstanding amount with respect to Civil Appeal Nos. 1708
of 2023, 4336 of 2023 and 2828 of 2023. The said chart
gives the details of the outstanding amount of the principal
and also the preEMI to be paid by the Builder as also the
borrower. The interest calculated is up to 30th November,
2024. The said chart is reproduced hereunder :
1128 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Chart showing the outstanding amount payable by the
Appellants as on 30.11.2024
Case No. Total Outstanding Interest 70% 50% amount Balance Total Total
Outstanding Principal including Interest to be borne amount of Amount Receivable
(INR) to be paid PEMI including by the the interest payable (INR) As on
by the (INR) PEMI Builder as including by the 30.11.2024
Appellants (INR) per Supreme PEMI to be Appellant (Principal +
(INR) (After 30% Court order paid by the (INR) 70% PEMI)
Waiver) dated Appellants
23.10.2024
Civil 2,15,72, 1,26,35,131 59,26,318 41,48,422 29,63,159.00 11,85,263.60 1,38,20,394 1,67,83,553.60
Appeal 585.17 .00 .00 .60 .60
1708/20
23 Akshay
Gupta vs
ICICI Bank
Limited
Civil 2,92,16, 1,85,38,453 74,83,524 52,38,466 37,41,762.00 14,96,704.80 2,00,35, 2,37,76,919
Appeal 435.55 .00 .00 .80 157.8 .80
4336/20
23
Muringa
ssril Jacob
Kuruvilla
vs
ICICI Bank
Limited
Civil 2,61,89, 1,66,55,259 67,41,497 47,19,047 33,70,748.50 13,48,299.40 401,80,03, 2,13,74,306
Appeal 495.27 .00 .00 .90 558.40 .90
2828/20
23 Jignesh
Tapiawa
la Vs ICICI
Bank
Limited

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Builder Shri Viraj
Kadam, upon instructions, has stated that the Builder will
pay the outstanding amount of pre-EMI, as mentioned in
the above chart, latest by 20th December, 2024. Further,
the learned counsel for the borrowers-appellants in the
above three appeals, upon instruction, have stated that
they will pay the outstanding amount payable by them,
as indicated in the above chart, to the respondent-Bank
within a week from the date the Builder makes the deposit
with the Bank, as indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that as
the interest is calculated up to 30th November, 2024, the
parties may be directed to make the deposit accordingly
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1129

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

on or before the said date or otherwise, the Bank may
submit a fresh Chart with interest calculated up to
31st December, 2024.
5. We are not inclined to accept the request of the Bank
considering the fact that the Builder as also the borrowers-
appellants have agreed to clear the entire outstanding
amount, as agreed, including the principal amount. We
direct that the Bank would be entitled to interest up to
30th November, 2024. In case, the Builder or the borrowers-
appellants commit default in not making the payments, as
noted above, the request of the Bank for interest beyond
30th November, 2024 would be considered.
6. Insofar as the adjustment of the pre-EMI paid by the
borrowers-appellants to the respondent-Bank, as against
the 5% outstanding amount, to be paid by the borrowers-
appellants to the Builder is concerned, Shri Viraj Kadam,
learned counsel for the Builder has stated that the
Builder will repay the pre-EMI, paid by the borrowers-
appellants to the respective borrowers-appellants, within
the same time i.e. before 20th December, 2024 and the
borrowers-appellants may pay the balance 5% of the sale
consideration to the Builder within a week thereafter, as
indicated above.
7. Insofar as the appeal of Ravi Agrawal in Civil Appeal
No. 1709 of 2023 is concerned, which does not involve the
Bank but only settlement is to be arrived at between the
Builder and the borrower(s)- appellant(s), according to Shri
Viraj Kadam learned counsel appearing for the builder has
agreed to pay the 50% of the pre-EMI outstanding amount,
which the borrower(s)-appellant(s), had paid directly to the
Bank within the same time i.e. before 20th December 2024.
Shri Kadam, learned counsel further submits that the
additional pre-EMI amount prior to the settlement with
the Bank paid by the borrower(s)- appellant(s) will also
be paid to the borrower(s)- appellant(s) by the Builder
within the same time whereupon within a week thereafter,
the borrower(s)- appellant(s) may pay the 5% balance of
the sale consideration to the Builder. Learned counsel for
1130 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the borrower(s)-appellant(s) agrees to the said terms and
states that after receiving the additional pre-EMI amount
as also the 50% of the outstanding pre-EMI amount, the
borrower(s)-appellant(s) shall pay the balance 5% of the
sale consideration to the Builder within a week.
8. Let the parties comply with the aforesaid terms and
conditions and ensure that the timeline is maintained
regarding the payment.
9. It is also directed that the Bank, upon receiving the entire
amount, shall issue the NOC to the Borrowers-appellants
forthwith in all the four cases.
10. List these appeals on 8th January, 2025.”

3. When the matter was taken up on 09.01.2025, learned counsel
for the parties had informed us that all the directions contained in
order dated 06.11.2024 have been complied with by the parties.
Accordingly, two weeks’ time was granted to the appellants to file the
relevant documents relating to proof of deposits and the No Dues
Certificate to be issued by the Bank to enable the Court to pass the
final orders and conclude the proceedings. All the four appellants
filed their affidavits before 23.01.2025 when orders were reserved.
4. We have perused the affidavits and we find that 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.
5. We need not go into the details as the same is an admitted position.
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.
6. Only three small issues have been flagged by the appellants, which
need further clarification from this Court:
i) The Bank be directed to remove the word ‘settlement’ used
in the loan account statement as it may affect future loan
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1131

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

facilities being availed by the appellant. As such, the Bank be
requested to delete the word ‘settlement’ and substitute it by
the word ‘re-paid’.
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. It is also
submitted that builder has already handed over possession in
the said building to many other flat-owners.
iii) Another small 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.
7. 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, we are of the view that the loan account should
be closed treating it as repaid or fully paid up. Mr. Viraj Kadam,
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 Mr. Kadam, 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.
1132 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

v) Further, appellant Ravi Agrawal or any other appellant who
had initiated proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority shall withdraw such cases.
9. Thus, all matters between the parties stand closed and there shall
be complete quietus to the litigation. The appeals stand disposed
of accordingly.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan