Dismissed

Smt Ruchi Goyal v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

DRT7 Jul 2026SA/954/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application filed by an Applicant claiming third party interest in mortgaged property. The Tribunal held the Applicant had no right to the property and directed the Respondent Bank to recover litigation costs from the borrower.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; Respondent Bank directed to recover entire litigation cost from the borrower.

Smt Ruchi Goyal versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 28

¶3

Case No. SA/954/2025

¶4

SMT RUCHI GOYAL Vs ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶5

Date: 07.07.2026.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶7

Shri AtulSaxena, Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Shr Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶9

In this matter, the counsel for the applicant submits that he is third party and they have interest in the property thus will pay the fee as per third party.

¶10

He submits that the borrower has entered into a settlement with the respondent bank and substantial amount has been paid. The few other matters relating to the property and the borrowers are pending which revealed a strategy by the family members to defraud the bank and put the bank into litigation for long in various forums.

¶11

There is another Securitization Application filed by Ms Maan Kanwar stating that Maintenance Tribunal has set aside the Gift deed by her on the basis of which the mortgaged was created. This is clear that fraud is being played by the family members as Ms Maan Kanwar has created mortgaged and signed mortgaged documents which apparently was not disclosed to the Tribunal & ex-parte orders were obtained just to defraud the Bank.

¶12

Everything has erupted after the year 2022 to be defeat the recovery of the bank. This is categorically made clear that if the applicant has get any civil right they can continue their civil suit which according to the applicant is pending.

¶13

According to this Tribunal, the applicant has no right in the property. Therefore, this Securitization Application stands dismissed and the

¶14

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

respondent bank is directed to recover the entire litigation cost from the borrower.

¶17

File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶18

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶19

Smt Ruchi Goyal v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ruchi Goyal v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Vishal Thukral

Jayesh Jain and Surbhi Jain versus Bank of Baroda

Banshi Lal Mali versus Sammaan Capital Limited

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. versus Abhishek Bhageria

Kamlesh Gotwal versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. versus Abhishek Bhageria