Sahirbhai Abdulrahim Vijrivadha vs Icici Bank Limited on 25 March 2026

Exh- 09

<table border="1"><tr><td data-bbox="151 73 288 91">25/03/2026</td><td data-bbox="291 73 801 91">MA/24/2026</td></tr><tr><td data-bbox="151 94 288 949">Present:</td><td data-bbox="291 94 801 949"><p>Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.</p><p>Mr. A. S. Panesar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the Applicants has moved Miscellaneous Application 24/2026 Exh.A/07 stating therein that in SA No.715/2025 vide order dated 13/01/2026 a settlement which was arrived between the Applicants and the Respondent Bank was taken on record and the Applicants were directed to pay the entire settlement amount in a phased manner till 30/04/2026. However, due to financial crunch the Applicants were not able to deposit the first installment in totality, they were to deposit to Rs.73,33,333/- lacs till 28/02/2026 but they have deposited only 40.00 lacs till that date they are ready and willing to pay the remaining first installment amount of Rs.30,33,333/- as per direction of the Tribunal, immediately. Through Exh.A/07 request has been moved that the Respondent bank may be directed to receive the remaining of the first installment within next one day and the Applicant will pay the remaining entire settlement dues as per the plan in settlement arrived between the parties. Last installment is to be paid on 30/04/2026.</p><p>In these circumstances necessary instructions have been sought against the Respondent Bank.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand has vehemently opposed this application filing Exh.R/08 Affidavit-in-Reply, mainly on three grounds.</p><ol><li>1. That while the SA was filed by the four Applicants who have signed SA as well as the Affidavit accompanying the SA, this undertaking Exh.A/07 was signed by only Mr. Sahirbhai Abdulrahim Virjivadha, claiming himself the proprietor of the Ami Steel Traders. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that this Application itself is a fraud because Mr.Sahirbhai Abdulrahim Virjivadha is not proprietor of that firm Mr. Abdulrahim is the proprietor of the firm and while SA was</li></ol></td></tr></table>

filed by the four Applicants only one of them has signed this undertaking Exh.A/7 and accordingly it does not covers the consent or undertaking of the rest of the Applicants, on this ground alone this Applicant should be rejected.

2. Next objection is that the decision for settlement is a commercial wisdom of the Respondent Bank and this Tribunal has got no right to interfere in the commercial wisdom of the Bank and if the settlement arrived between the parties has not been fulfilled and default has been committed the Respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. He has cited the ruling of **Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard passed in State Bank of India vs. Arvind Electricals Pvt. Ltd. in (2023) 1 SCC 540** in which, it has been observed that the Court has no power to re-schedule the payment under OTS as it is the Commercial wisdom of the creditor alone. He has further cited ruling of **Hon'ble Kerala High Court passed in Classic Agencies represented by the partner Mani V. and Others vs. Regional Office Indian Overseas Bank represented by its Regional Manager (2025) SCC OnLine Kerala 6649** in which relying on the ratio of **Arvind Electricals Pvt Ltd. by Hon'ble Supreme Court** the same observation was made. On these grounds, it has been submitted that this Tribunal has no right to interfere with the Commercial wisdom of the Respondent Bank.

3. He has further submitted that while passing the order dated 13/01/2026 in SA No.715/2025, this Tribunal has clearly observed that in case of single default the Respondent will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and he has submitted that on the strength of that paragraph also the Respondent Bank is now at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, on the event of default committed by the Respondent.

Replying to the objections, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that it is wrong to say that the undertaking A/07 filed by Mr. Sahirbhai Abdulrahim Virjivadha is based on fraud and unauthorized. On the next page of the that undertaking letter of authority has been filed signed by Mr. Abdulrahim Virjivadha. He has further submitted that the proposition of law that this Tribunal has no right to intervening into the commercial wisdom of the Bank cannot be denied but in this case there is already a settlement between the parties and here the Applicants have not violated the settlement deed. They have just made some late payments and the last date for making the final payment has still not arrived which is on 30/04/2026. The simple prayer of the Applicant is to permit him to deposit the remaining amount of first installment and there is no question of interference in commercial wisdom, accordingly the ruling cited by the Respondent is not applicable in this case, same request has been made with regard to the single default clause laid down by this Tribunal in order dated 13/01/2026.

I have heard both the Ld. Counsels and perused the records, the letter of authority filed with the undertaking Exh.A/07 makes it clear that this is not an unauthorized undertaking it has been signed for all the partners as the proprietor of the firm i.e. Ami Steel Traders has authorized the Applicant to sign the undertaking.

As far as, intervening into the commercial wisdom of the Respondent Bank, this Tribunal cannot even think to act against settled proposition of law and it cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the creditors. But here, it is the Bank and the party itself which has arrived at a settlement to permit the Applicant to pay the settled amount in a phased manner and last date of final payment has not yet arrived it is on 30/04/2026. **This Tribunal wants to emphasize on the fact that here we are talking about a responsible creditor and not about a Loan Shark, who can arbitrarily permit or deny any borrower to pay as per settlement.**

Simply on the ground that certain amount is not paid, for which the Applicants come forward to pay within two days, the rights of the Applicant to pay the entire settlement within specified period cannot be denied.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has no intention and it is no intervening with the final date of payment of settlement dues this Tribunal is unable to understand what prejudice will be caused against the Respondent Bank, if the entire settlement dues will be paid within specified and agreed time limit.

**In these circumstances, this Tribunal considers it just and proper to allow the undertaking of the Applicant and permit him to pay the remaining amount of first installment within next two days and pay the entire settlement amount as per the settlement plan positively till 30/04/2026.**

With these observations this MA is hereby finally disposed of.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Sr. No.48 stl