Dismissed

Ravi Goswami v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT1 Sept 2025SA/253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the bank's recovery actions, alleging irregular service of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). The applicant subsequently moved to withdraw the Securitization Application without liberty. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and permitted the bank to proceed with further action.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application disposed of; respondent bank permitted to proceed with recovery actions.

Ravi Goswami versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 18

¶3

Case No.SA/253/2024

¶4

RAVI GOSWAMI Vs ICICI BANK LIMITED

¶5

Date: 01.09.2025.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶7

Shri Hemant Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Shri Akash Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI alongwith Ms. Priyanka Pareek, Legal Manager of ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶9

In this matter, arguments have been heard at length. The main thrust of the counsel for the applicant herein is that they received notice dated 30.10.2023 on 15.12.2023 and the bank has proceeded further without expiry of 60 days &they are calculating the limitation from the said date.

¶10

It is pleaded and relied upon in the securitization application filed before this Tribunal on 02.03.2024. Subsequently, during the scrutiny an application for amendment was filed along with amended SA for which notice of 09.04.2024 were issued.

¶11

Very interestingly, the applicant has challenged the stand about notice of 13(2) in the limitation paragraph, whereas in the earlier SA it was mentioned that notice was received on 15.10.2023 by hand. In the new Securitization Application, there was altogether denial of the receipts of the notices. The relevant portion states that “the illegal demand notice under section 13(2) dated 30.10.2023 [which was not served on the SA Applicants]” and thus, pleadings are filed subsequently amending the earlier Securitization Application. It was also on oath wherein it was admitted by the applicant that the notices were given to them by hand.

¶12

Uploaded on 02.09.2025

¶13

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶14

The fraud with court starts from this point. The letter at page 156 annexure 9 signed by Ravi Goswami on 10.02.2024 purported to be objections under Section 13(3) A also was annexed with earlier SA which was unsigned thus clearly an attempt to mislead the Tribunal.

¶15

The Applicants harp on that they never received the notices issued by the Bank whereas the track report filed by the Bank shows receipt of notices at several addresses at Assam.

¶16

The applicants also harp on failure of their business in Kaziranga Assam relying upon the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in September 2012 and on 12.04 2019 to state that their loan account became bad due to hotel business got closed & they could not repay.

¶17

This is a clear case of perjury as the loan itself was sanctioned in 2020 and availed in 2021 thus trying to take shelter under such order knowing fully well that this argument is misleading and trying to take favourable orders on fraudulent pleadings.

¶18

Further as per Bank the Applicants have failed to disclose that they have another 16 Loan accounts with the Bank and all those accounts are in NPA status and as per bank his account cannot be regularized and unless entire payments are made in all the accounts their properties cannot be released.

¶19

This is fit case to issue contempt notice but at this juncture, Counsel for the applicant wants to withdraw this Securitization Application without any liberty.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent bank on instructions submits that since they are withdrawing the SA accepting the validity of bank actions so far, Bank may be permitted to proceed.

¶21

Uploaded on 02.09.2025

¶22

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶23

Evidently, when the Securitization Application has been withdrawn, challenges to the notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) have been withdrawn and action of the bank has been accepted. Therefore, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed ahead.

¶24

Any further action of the bank can be challenged by the applicant as per law.

¶25

In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶26

(Vimal Gupta)

¶27

Presiding Officer

¶28

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶29

Uploaded on 02.09.2025

Ravi Goswami v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Goswami v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus Lokesh Sharma

Hdfc Bank versus Jayraj Malik

Hdfc Bank versus Dilip Kumar Sharma

Canara Bank versus M/S Radha Rani Fashion

Sekh Jakir Hussain versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Bhawani Singh versus Namdev Finvest Private Limited