ICICI Bank has unlawfully withheld export shipments that were fully paid for in advance by our international buyers and deliberately refused to disburse sanctioned credit facilities after securing high-value property under mortgage as collateral to prepare, manufacture, and ship export orders received from our long-standing buyers. These actions directly led to the collapse of our export operations, causing confirmed financial losses to buyers across the USA, Canada, and Europe. Despite initiating legal proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and submitting multiple formal complaints, no effective relief has been granted. This continued inaction strongly suggests collusion between ICICI Bank and certain corrupt and biased officials within the judicial and tribunal systems, driven by the misuse of the bankβs financial and political influence.
I. π Forgery & Fabrication of Legal Documents
- Forgery of Mortgage Deeds
- ICICI Bank allegedly forged equitable mortgage deeds using blank signed stamp papers.
- No registered mortgage deed under Sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act.
- β Violation: Sec. 464 IPC (Forgery), Sec. 463, Sec. 468.
- π Case Law: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) β Forgery renders decree void.
- ICICI Bank allegedly forged equitable mortgage deeds using blank signed stamp papers.
- Production of False Documents in DRT & Courts
- Fabricated βIrrevocable Power of Attorneyβ, Undertakings, Declaration-cum-Affidavit produced without lawful execution or registration.
- β Violations: IPC Sec. 471 (Using forged documents as genuine).
- π Case Law: A.S. Krishna v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1966 SC 119 β Deliberate use of false evidence violates judicial sanctity.
- Fabricated βIrrevocable Power of Attorneyβ, Undertakings, Declaration-cum-Affidavit produced without lawful execution or registration.
- Use of Blank Signed Documents
- Bank allegedly obtained blank facility agreements, stamp papers, disbursement forms and inserted false entries.
- β Violation: Indian Contract Act Sec. 10 (Free consent), Sec. 17 (Fraud).
- π Case Law: K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, AIR 1998 SC 1297.
- Bank allegedly obtained blank facility agreements, stamp papers, disbursement forms and inserted false entries.
II. π° Loan Sanction and Disbursement Frauds
- Non-disbursement of Sanctioned Loan
- Only βΉ37.16 lakhs disbursed out of βΉ2.5 crores sanctioned.
- Caused default by closing existing facilities of βΉ93 lakhs from UUCB and NBFCs.
- β Violation: ICA Sec. 73 (Loss from breach), Sec. 25 (Failure of consideration).
- π Case Law: Union of India v. Chaman Lal Loona, AIR 1957 SC 652 β Contract void if consideration fails.
- Only βΉ37.16 lakhs disbursed out of βΉ2.5 crores sanctioned.
- False Representation in Disbursement Schedule
- Fake ledger entries shown as disbursed without actual credit to borrowerβs account.
- β Violation: RBI Master Circular on Loan Disbursement; Banking Regulation Act Sec. 10B.
- Fake ledger entries shown as disbursed without actual credit to borrowerβs account.
III. π Stamp & Legal Execution Frauds
- Blank Stamp Undertakings
- Misuse of blank Rajasthan stamp undertakings filled later for mortgage legality without informing the borrower.
- β Violation: Indian Stamp Act Sec. 35 (Invalidity without proper stamping).
- Misuse of blank Rajasthan stamp undertakings filled later for mortgage legality without informing the borrower.
- Unregistered Agreements Presented as Valid
- Facility Agreements not properly dated, undated declarations used, non-notarized POAs produced in DRT.
- π Case Law: K.K. Bhalla v. DDA, (2011) 5 SCC 523 β Unregistered documents not enforceable.
- Facility Agreements not properly dated, undated declarations used, non-notarized POAs produced in DRT.
IV. βοΈ Judicial Misrepresentation & Suppression
- Suppression of Borrower’s Rights in DRT/DRAT
- Issues raised in IA (Interlocutory Applications) never answered.
- DRT Jaipur dismissed SA-351/2024 on dated : 08 May 2025 without heard on merit and without examining fraud allegations and all other lawful complaint raised against ICICI Bank.
- β Violation: SARFAESI Act Sec. 17 read with Art. 14, 21 of Constitution.
- Issues raised in IA (Interlocutory Applications) never answered.
- False Narrative by Co-Borrowers and Advocate
- Claimed borrower spent money on luxury and didn’t pay EMI β contradictory to records of EMIs paid.
- Used to manipulate DRT Officer and deny relief.
- π Case Law: Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 β Litigants approaching court must come with clean hands.
- Claimed borrower spent money on luxury and didn’t pay EMI β contradictory to records of EMIs paid.
V. π Misuse of Force and Illegal Possession
- Illegal Possession by Recovery Team
- Eviction on 09-03-2025 using force despite DRT reliefs.
- Recovery Manager Nitin Joshi with 30 people allegedly violated all norms of SARFAESI Sec. 13(4), 14.
- β Violation: Article 21 β Right to Dignity & Livelihood.
- π Case Law: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 (9) SCC 1.
- Inhuman Treatment of MSME Borrower
- Serious sciatica patient (user) forced to carry bags during eviction.
- β Violation: NHRC Guidelines, Human Rights Protection Act Sec. 12.
- π Case Law: Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
VI. ποΈ Regulatory and Statutory Non-compliance
- Violation of RBI Circulars for MSME Relief (COVID)
- Refused restructuring/rescheduling under RBI circulars.
- β Violation: RBI Circular dated 06-08-2020 (Resolution Framework for COVID-19).
- Non-Compliance with RBI KYC/Communication Norms
- Despite updated contact details, never informed the main borrower about key loan actions or alleged foreclosure.
- π Case Law: Canara Bank v. Amar Nath, AIR 2000 SC 3629 β Procedural fairness required in banking actions.
- Retention of Collateral Title Documents
- Despite closure of prior NBFC/UUCB loans, ICICI retained joint property collateral unlawfully.
- β Violation: ICA Sec. 72 (Obligation to return benefit obtained without right).