Through Its Authorised Representative vs Aarti Sharma on 22 October, 2020
Announced in the open Court on this 22nd day of October, 2020
This judgment consists of 5 signed pages.
CS No.3295/18
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Aarti Sharma & Anr.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 106 (0.76 seconds)Documents citing
M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Kamini Sharma & Anr on 31 January, 2018
M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Sh. Manoj Kumar Pandey on 15 February, 2022
10. In the present matter, the loan document i.e., Credit Facility
Application form(Ex.PW1/2) is filed in original and the same bears the
signatures of the defendant. The factum of release of the loan amount is
clearly established by the plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff has filed on
record a certificate u/S 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act,
1891(Ex.PW1/7) in support of certified copy of Statement of
Account(Ex.PW1/6). Furthermore, no challenge to the statement of
account (Ex.PW1/6) on account of tempering, forgery, hacking, change
of contents etc., has been made and hence, there is no impediment in
reading the same into evidence in support of plaintiff's case. Reliance in
this regard is placed on the judgment in ICICI Bank Ltd vs Kamini
Sharma(supra).
Having Its Branch Office At vs Manoj Rathi on 3 March, 2022
21. PW- 1 has tendered his oral evidence which is contained
in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. A question may arise here that
PW1 is not privy to the execution of various documents on
which the cause of action has been founded upon by the
defendant. On this aspect the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
has placed strong reliance on judgment passed on
31.01.2018 by our own High Court in RFA No. 297/2015
titled 'M/S ICICI Bank Limited versus Kamini Sharma &
Another'. The sum and substance of the facts of the said
case are similarly placed as the facts in the case under
consideration.
Icici Bank Ltd vs Ritu Malhotra on 3 December, 2021
20. PW- 1 has tendered his oral evidence which is contained
in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. A question may arise here that
PW1 is not privy to the execution of various documents by
the defendants on which the cause of action has been
founded. On this aspect Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has
placed strong reliance on a judgment passed on 31.01.2018
by our own Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 297/2015
titled 'M/S ICICI Bank Limited versus Kamini Sharma &
Another'. The sum and substance of the facts of the said
case are similarly placed as the facts in the case under
consideration.
And Having Its Branch Office At vs Karta Ram on 8 December, 2021
19. PW- 1 has tendered his oral evidence which is contained in his
affidavit Ex. PW1/A. A question may arise here that PW1 is not
privy to the execution of various documents on which the cause of
action has been founded upon by the defendant. On this aspect the
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed strong reliance on a
judgment passed on 31.01.2018 by our own Hon'ble High Court in
RFA No. 297/2015 titled 'M/S ICICI Bank Limited versus Kamini
Sharma & Another'. The sum and substance of the facts of the said
case are similar to the facts of the present case.
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Deepak Gupta on 4 December, 2021
28. The evidence in this case is primarily documentary. At the
cost of repetition, the documents tendered in evidence by
the plaintiff are the documents maintained by a bank in the
ordinary course of its business. Though the exceptions
cannot be ruled out, but generally taking a due notice of
the banking business, these documents can be considered
to be duly executed in due course of the business and
capable of binding the parties into a contractual
relationship. I am also supported by the judgments of our
own High Court in the case of Kamini Sharma (supra) and
Sunil Sharma (supra) on this aspect.
Interalia Having Its Branch Office At vs Bhagwan Dass on 18 January, 2022
19. Even though defendant has been proceeded ex-parte, the plaintiff is
still liable to prove its case on pre-ponderance of probabilities. PW-
1 has tendered his oral evidence which is contained in his affidavit
Ex. PW1/A. A question may arise here that PW1 is not privy to the
execution of various documents on which the cause of action has
been founded upon by the defendant. On this aspect the Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff has placed strong reliance on a judgment passed on
31.01.2018 by our own Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 297/2015
titled 'M/S ICICI Bank Limited versus Kamini Sharma & Another'.
The sum and substance of the facts of the said case are similar to the
facts of the present case.
Through Its Authorized Representative vs Rajinder Jain on 21 March, 2022
18. PW- 1 has tendered his oral evidence which is contained
in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. A question may arise here that
PW1 is not privy to the execution of various documents on
which the cause of action has been founded upon by the
defendant. On this aspect the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
has placed strong reliance on a judgment passed on
31.01.2018 by our own Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.
297/2015 titled 'M/S ICICI Bank Limited versus Kamini
Sharma & Another'. The sum and substance of the facts of
CS (Comm.) No. 825/2021 Page 6 of 11
the said case are similar to the facts of the present case.
Interalia Having Its Branch Office At vs Parul Gupta D/O Sh. Desh Bandhu Gupta on 2 March, 2022
21. PW- 1 has tendered his oral evidence which is contained
CS (Comm.) No. 1098/2019 Page 5 of 10
in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. A question may arise here that
PW1 is not privy to the execution of various documents on
which the cause of action has been founded upon by the
defendant. On this aspect the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
has placed strong reliance on judgment passed on
31.01.2018 by our own High Court in RFA No. 297/2015
titled 'M/S ICICI Bank Limited versus Kamini Sharma &
Another'. The sum and substance of the facts of the said
case are similarly placed as the facts in the case under
consideration.
(Through Ms Roohi Thakur vs Sartaj Hotels Apartment & Villas ... on 30 January, 2019
62. This court observes that a certificate not accompanying the
email is a mere irregularity and the same is curable, as held by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ICICI Bank Vs Kamini Sharma -
RFA 297 of 2015 decided on 31.01.2018. It is further observed on
careful examination and scrutiny of the judicial file that a certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of Ms. Roohi
Thakur, Proprietor of Maple Consultant is on record and bears the
court endorsement of being filed on 20.08.2014. It is further observed
that the said certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, was filed prior to the recording the examination-in-chief of
PW1 on 04.06.2015. It is held that the objection of the defendant to
the emails being inadmissible in evidence for want of certificate are
untenable.