In a noteworthy display of judicial mediation of Akshay Gupta & Others v/s ICICI Bank Limited & Others, the Supreme Court has successfully facilitated an amicable settlement between flat owners (borrowers), a builder, and a bank in a long-standing commercial dispute. The case, initially brought before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) over allegations of unfair trade practices and violations of RBI guidelines, saw all parties reaching a comprehensive agreement, leading to the closure of multiple appeals.

The dispute arose from a commercial arrangement where the flat owners had taken loans from the bank to purchase apartments from the builder. Defaults on obligations from all three sides had led to significant contention. The flat owners had sought to quash loan recall notices issued by the bank, while the builder and bank had their own grievances.

The Path to Resolution:

The Supreme Court played a pivotal role in guiding the parties toward a resolution. Over several hearings, the Court engaged with all sides, meticulously outlining the terms of a proposed settlement. Key aspects of the agreement, as detailed in the Court's orders on October 23, 2024, and November 6, 2024, included:

• Bank's Concessions: The ICICI Bank agreed to completely waive outstanding charges and offer a 30% discount on pre-EMI (Equated Monthly Installment) amounts, provided the entire outstanding principal and remaining pre-EMI were settled upfront.
• Builder's Contribution: The builder, Rajsanket Realty Ltd., committed to paying 50% of the outstanding pre-EMI amount. Additionally, the builder agreed to repay any pre-EMI amounts the flat owners had directly paid to the bank.
• Borrowers' Obligations: The flat owners agreed to clear their outstanding principal and pre-EMI amounts within a week of the builder making its deposit to the bank. They also committed to paying the remaining 5% of the sale consideration to the builder after receiving the builder's share of the pre-EMI payments.

Full Compliance and Final Directions:

By January 9, 2025, the Court was informed that all parties had complied with the agreed-upon terms. Affidavits filed by the appellants before January 23, 2025, confirmed the full discharge of obligations by all parties. The bank confirmed it had received all due amounts and issued no-dues certificates, signifying no further claims against the appellants regarding the apartment facilities.

To ensure a complete and final resolution, the Supreme Court issued further directions:

• Loan Account Statement: The bank was directed to amend its records, substituting the term "settlement" with "repaid" or "fully paid up" in the loan account statements to avoid any negative impact on the appellants' future loan facilities.
• Possession of Apartments: The builder assured the Court that possession of the apartments, fully completed and in accordance with legal requirements, would be handed over to the appellants by March 31, 2025.
• Payment Acknowledgments: The builder was directed to issue written acknowledgments for payments received from the appellants, even though bank transfer records served as proof.
• Withdrawal of Legal Proceedings: Both the bank and the appellants were directed to withdraw any ongoing recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), or any other forum related to the specific loans and properties.

With these comprehensive directions, the Supreme Court declared that all matters between the parties stand closed, bringing a "complete quietus to the litigation." This case serves as an example of how judicial intervention can steer complex commercial disputes toward mutually beneficial, amicable resolutions.

Section 23, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986