Fact 1: Collateral Hijack through Cooperative Bank Manipulation & Fraudulent Diversion of Sanctioned Funds
Summary:
The first step in the orchestrated conspiracy began when Udaipur Urban Cooperative Bank (UUCB) suddenly and unlawfully closed a sanctioned ₹75 Lakhs credit facility granted to Impressive Art Interior (an MSME), which was backed by collateral mortgage of a prime residential property. This was done without issuing prior notice, obtaining borrower consent, or complying with mandatory RBI regulatory procedures.
In a parallel and deeply suspicious move, ICICI Bank, while sanctioning a ₹2.5 crore MSME business loan, released less than ₹38 Lakhs to the borrower. However, ₹75 Lakhs was directly diverted to UUCB—without any loan agreement clause permitting such transaction, and without approval of the borrower. This amount was falsely shown as a “settlement” of the UUCB loan, even though ICICI had no contractual basis to make such payment.
This fraudulent diversion served two illegal objectives:
- To hijack the collateral directly from UUCB and transfer it to ICICI Bank’s control—without the borrower’s signature, consent, or knowledge.
- To block any future financing options, by freezing the most valuable asset (the borrower’s house) under a new charge without transparency or fair procedure.
Further, to cover the shortage required to release the property from UUCB records, the same agent (working with both banks and the borrower’s CA) deposited a small top-up amount towards closure charges—again, without written approval of the borrower. This shows a calculated, fraudulent design to misuse sanctioned loan funds and seize control of high-value property under a fabricated financial trail.
Legal Breach Identified:
- Diversion of sanctioned loan amount without contractual authorization (Violation of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act)
- Violation of RBI Guidelines on MSME Credit Lending and Collateral handling
- Fraudulent discharge of a third-party loan, amounting to criminal breach of trust under IPC Sections 409, 420, and 120B
- Illegal mortgage transfer without owner’s consent or signing of release deed
Recommended Legal Action:
- File criminal proceedings against the involved bank officers, agent, and Chartered Accountant under IPC Sections 420, 409, 463, and 120B
- Seek injunction and cancellation of the ICICI mortgage charge through DRT and Civil Court proceedings
- Submit a complaint before RBI Ombudsman, MSME Commissioner, and Registrar of Cooperative Societies against UUCB and ICICI Bank
- Demand a forensic audit of fund flows under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (SFIO) or ED, citing cross-institutional fraud and fund laundering
Fact 2: Fraudulent Conversion of MSME Loan into Home Loan, Insertion of Criminal Co-Borrowers & Sabotage of Foreign Trade
Summary:
Before the formal loan disbursal by ICICI Bank, a deep-rooted financial conspiracy was executed. Under duress and deception, blank signed and stamped documents were collected from the legitimate MSME borrower and later forged into a Home Loan agreement, overriding the original MSME business loan sanctioned for export operations. The mortgage was never registered, yet ICICI forcibly marked a charge over the borrower’s prime residential property without following any legal due process.
In a calculated act of betrayal, malicious co-borrowers—including Praveen Choudhary and Rahul Chaudhary (previously expelled from any ownership or property rights)—were illegally inserted into the loan agreement. These individuals had no repayment capacity, no connection to the MSME business, and were included solely to enable a future takeover of the borrower’s collateral property through an internal conspiracy with ICICI officers and a fraudulent advocate, Sharad Joshi.
Later, these same co-borrowers secretly filed a closure and One-Time Settlement (OTS) application, using fake proceedings in SA-339/2021 before DRT Jaipur, without consent or knowledge of the original MSME borrower. They falsely projected that the borrower’s elderly mother had voluntarily paid ₹10,00,000 via cheque—which was forcibly retrieved from her—to give the false impression that she intended to close the loan. This was widely publicized through fake narratives to defame the MSME borrower as a willful defaulter.
The reality:
- ICICI Bank never disbursed the full ₹2.5 crore loan, releasing only ₹37 lakhs.
- That ₹37 lakhs was forcibly withdrawn by the co-borrowers themselves, without the beneficiary’s control.
- These actions were intentionally executed to sabotage MSME export orders, disrupt production, and damage the long-term business relations with US and EU-based foreign buyers, who had paid advances for high-value shipments.
The result:
Severe financial loss, emotional trauma, reputational harm, and physical injury to the real borrower, caused by criminal misrepresentation and strategic character assassination.
Legal Breach Identified:
- Forgery, impersonation, and criminal conspiracy under IPC Sections 406, 420, 464, 468, 471, 120B
- Violation of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Contracts signed under coercion and misrepresentation
- Illegal OTS application and DRT manipulation under false identities
- Defamation and reputational attack, targeting MSME credibility with global buyers
- Violation of FEMA, Export Obligations, and RBI’s MSME Finance Guidelines
Recommended Legal Action:
- File criminal complaints against Rahul Chaudhary, Praveen Choudhary, Sharad Joshi, and ICICI officials involved
- Seek forensic verification of all loan and DRT documents, including SA-339/2021
- File an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to reverse illegal mortgage creation
- Move the DRT and Civil Court to nullify the fraudulent OTS and restore property rights
- File defamation and damages suit for international trade loss
- Submit complaints to RBI, MSME Ministry, Ministry of Commerce (DGFT), and Indian Embassy Legal Cells in USA/EU
Fact 3: SA-339/2021 – A Fraudulent and Malicious Application Filed Using Mother’s Forged Cheque
Summary:
The DRT application SA-339/2021 is a fabricated and malicious legal maneuver executed without the consent, knowledge, or participation of the MSME borrower. This application was filed deceptively by Rahul Chaudhary, Praveen Chaudhary, and their family members with the aid of fraudulent Advocate Sharad Joshi, in active conspiracy with ICICI Bank officials.
To lend false credibility to the application, the conspirators:
- Forged a cheque from the MSME borrower’s 82-year-old mother, obtained by threat, coercion, and psychological intimidation, leveraging the influence of Vartika Chaudhary, wife of Rahul Chaudhary, who misused her proximity to a local lady DSP to induce fear.
- Claimed, through a falsified narrative, that the elderly mother voluntarily intended to close the ICICI loan by selling the ancestral house, despite the fact that the full loan amount was never disbursed under the sanctioned ₹2.5 crore MSME finance.
- Suppressed the fact that ICICI Bank was contractually obligated to disburse the loan only against MSME export activities, and that the borrower had long-standing export orders and obligations to USA and EU buyers, whose investments and shipments were catastrophically disrupted due to ICICI’s misconduct.
This fraudulent DRT filing was not only a gross abuse of judicial process but also a strategic attempt to:
- Bypass the rightful borrower
- Hijack property rights using emotional exploitation of the mother
- Defame the borrower’s reputation with false claims of default and dishonor
- Destroy MSME’s international credibility by freezing operations and failing committed orders
Legal Breach Identified:
- Forgery and use of forged documents under IPC Sections 463, 464, 468, and 471
- Criminal intimidation and elder abuse under Section 506 IPC and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
- Abuse of judicial process and fraud upon the court under Section 340 CrPC
- Violation of MSME Contractual Obligations and FEMA-linked export breach
- Conspiracy to defraud and sabotage foreign investment orders
Recommended Legal Action:
- File a criminal FIR for cheque forgery, elder coercion, and impersonation, naming Rahul, Praveen, Vartika Chaudhary, and Advocate Sharad Joshi
- File an application under Section 340 CrPC before DRT and Civil Court to initiate perjury and fraud-on-court proceedings
- Seek a stay on SA-339/2021 with complete evidence of non-consent and forgery
- Notify RBI, Ministry of MSME, and Ministry of Law & Justice, and request a probe into ICICI Bank’s collusion
- Alert US and EU trade protection forums and embassies about export sabotage by Indian bank and co-conspirators