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 133 (0.68 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).
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Sweety Verma on 5 July, 2021
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
CS (Comm.) No. 1169/2020 Page 6 of 12
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.
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Manish Juneja on 12 November, 2020
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
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
CS (Comm.) No. 2373/2019 Page 5 of 10
case are similarly placed as the facts in the case under
consideration.
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Trend Setters Books Limited on 12 November, 2020
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 on which the cause of
action has been founded upon by the defendants. 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.
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Naresh Sharma on 12 November, 2020
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 on which the cause of
action has been founded upon by the defendants. 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.
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Abhishek Kumar on 6 January, 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
judgment passed on 31.01.2018 by our own High Court in RFA
CS (Comm.) No. 223/2020 Page 5 of 10
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.
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Madhu Devi on 13 September, 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
CS (Comm.) No. 1611/2019 Page 5 of 10
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.
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Pradeep S/O Sh. Samant Singh on 18 September, 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 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.