rajdeep kumar 1 year ago

rajdeep #icici #Delhi High Court #icici bank

Case Details:

• Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
• Case Title: Ram Kishor Arora and Others vs ICICI Bank Limited and Another
• Case Number: W.P.(C) 3035/2025 & CM APPL. 14346-14347/2025
• Date of Decision: 10th March, 2025
• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
• Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Advocate with legal team
• Respondent Counsel: Mr. Sameer Parekh with team and Mr. Akshit Gupta (for R-2)

Background:

The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court challenging ICICI Bank’s classification of their accounts as “fraud” as per an internal order dated 5th January 2024. Initially, they had moved the Bombay High Court (W.P(C) No. 4344/2024), but the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, allowing liberty to file the case afresh before the competent court.

Key Grievance:

The petitioners argued that their accounts were marked fraudulent without being supplied the Forensic Audit Report or its Addendum — the primary basis for such classification. This, they contended, was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

ICICI Bank’s Stand:

The Bank, appearing on advance notice, admitted that the report had not been shared with the petitioners. The counsel submitted that if directed by the Court, the report (dated 23.09.2020) and its Addendum (dated 21.01.2021) would be provided within two weeks. They also agreed to allow the petitioners to respond before taking any final decision.

Court’s Observations:

Justice Manoj Jain observed that since the classification was primarily based on the Forensic Audit Report, it was the Bank’s duty to share it with the account holders before taking any adverse action. Non-supply of such critical documents undermines the right to a fair hearing.

Court's Directions:

1. The order dated 05.01.2024 classifying the accounts as fraud was set aside.
2. ICICI Bank was directed to supply the Forensic Audit Report and Addendum to the petitioners within two weeks.
3. Petitioners were given the liberty to respond to the documents.
4. The Bank can proceed further only after considering the response and is at liberty to decide whether a personal hearing is required.
5. All rights and contentions are reserved for future proceedings.

Conclusion:

This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in banking regulations. It serves as a reminder to financial institutions that decisions with grave implications must be preceded by adequate notice, disclosure, and opportunity to be heard.