Disposed

Ram Kishor Arora and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited and Anr.

Delhi HC10 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/3035/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged classification of their bank accounts as fraud without being supplied the Forensic Audit Report on which the classification rested. The Bank undertook to supply the report and addendum within two weeks; the Court set aside the fraud-classification order, permitting the Bank to proceed afresh after considering petitioners' response.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.01.2024 classifying accounts as fraud set aside; Bank to supply Forensic Audit Report dated 23.09.2020 and Addendum dated 21.01.2021 within two weeks; petitioners free to respond; right

Ram Kishor Arora and Ors. Vs Icici Bank Limited and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of Decision: 10^th March, 2025

¶3

W.P.(C) 3035/2025 &CM APPL. 14346-14347/2025 RAM KISHOR ARORA AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Jayashree Shukla Dasgupta with Mr. Rishika Ahuja and Mr. Shivam Nayyar, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

ICICI BANK LIMITED AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Parekh with Mr. Sumit Goel, Ms. Sreeparna B, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Ms. Aditi, Advocates. Mr. Akshit Gupta, Advocate for R-2

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶7

The challenge in the present petition is to the manner in which the accounts of petitioners have been classified as “ fraud” on 05.01.2024.

¶8

It seems that feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the petitioners had, earlier, knocked the doors of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay but such writ petition i.e. W.P(C) No. 4344/2024 was disposed of on 31.01.2025 on the limited point of jurisdiction and, simultaneously, the petitioners were granted liberty to file petition afresh before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction. While disposing of such petition, the respondent Bank had also submitted before the Bombay High Court that it would have no objection to the jurisdiction, if the petition is, eventually, filed before the Delhi High Court.

¶9

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.03.2025 15:00:00

¶10

W.P.(C) 3035/2025 1

¶11

It is in the above said backdrop that the present petition has been filed.

¶12

The prime grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that though the accounts have been classified as fraud but they have not been supplied with Forensic Audit Report on the basis of which such accounts were classified as fraud .

¶13

Learned counsel for ICICI Bank appears on advance notice and submits that, admittedly, the above said report was not supplied to the petitioners and, therefore, if so directed by the Court, such report would be supplied to the petitioners and after having response from them with respect to the same, the Bank shall further proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Show Cause Notice was based on the above said Forensic Audit Report and its Addendum .

¶15

Since the classification is based, essentially, on said report, it was incumbent on the part of bank to have supplied the same, in advance.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent Bank, on instructions, submits that they would ensure that the Forensic Audit Report dated 23.09.2020 and Addendum report dated 21.01.2021 are supplied within two weeks to all the petitioners and the petitioners would be at liberty to send response, if any, to the above said documents and thereafter the Bank shall proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the above said statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank,

¶18

W.P.(C) 3035/2025 2

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.03.2025 15:00:00

¶21

the petition may be disposed of accordingly and he does not pray for any further relief at the moment.

¶22

In view of the above, since the Bank Accounts of the petitioners had classified as fraud , without them being provided with the Forensic Audit Report and its Addendum and since, it has now been undertaken by the learned counsel for Bank that these would be supplied within a period of two weeks from today, the order dated 05.01.2024 is hereby set aside.

¶23

Let the above said reports be supplied to the petitioners within two weeks from today. Once these are supplied, the petitioners would be at liberty to send response, if any, to the above said documents.

¶24

After considering any such response, the Bank would be at liberty to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. It will be also entirely upto the Bank to decide whether the petitioners need to be given any personal hearing before taking any final decision in the matter or not.

¶25

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.

¶27

Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶28

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶29

MARCH 10, 2025/ sw/ss

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

W.P.(C) 3035/2025 3

¶32

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.03.2025 15:00:00

Ram Kishor Arora and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor Arora and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepshikha Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Service Tax Officer Ward - 92 & Anr.

Ganesh Trading Company Vs Superintendent Range 27 Central GST Division New Delhi & Anr.

Mr. Rohit Hans and Anr. Vs Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Anr.

Smita Jindal Vs Commissioner of Cental Goods and Service Tax (Cgst), Delhi West

M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras Sareen Vs Commissioner of Customs-Preventive, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Indianeye Security Private Limited Vs Sh Nawab Ali & Anr.

Swayam Sidha Residents Welfare Association through Its President/ General Secretary Jagdish Prasad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs M/S Pp Jewellers Private Limited

Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs S.K Verma

Jogindher G Vs S K Verma

Smt Saraswati Devi Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Roy Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Swayam Sidha Residents Welfare Association through Its President/ General Secretary Jagdish Prasad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Abid Qureshi Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.