Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights: Hearing Required Before Classifying Bank Accounts as 'Fraudulent,' MP High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, presided over by HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI and HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA, delivered a judgment on September 8, 2023, that reaffirms the importance of fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice in the banking sector.

The case, Writ Petition No. 22760 of 2023, involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of master directions on 'Fraud - Classification and Reporting' issued by respondent No.1, ICICI Bank. The petitioner, Rajiv Soni, alleged that these directions were arbitrary and unjust as they did not provide an opportunity for show cause notice or a personal hearing before classifying an account as 'fraudulent.'

The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized the significance of upholding fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It noted, "No opportunity of being heard is required before an FIR is lodged and registered." The classification of an account as fraudulent not only has criminal consequences but also affects access to banking facilities, making it essential to provide a hearing.

The judgment referred to a similar case in the High Court of Telangana, where the principles of audi alteram partem were upheld. The High Court directed the Joint Lenders' Forum (JLF) to provide an opportunity for a hearing and personal representation before classifying an account as 'fraudulent.'

Importantly, the High Court cited the recent Supreme Court judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agrawal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1, which upheld the need for a hearing before classifying an account as 'fraudulent.' The judgment summarized its conclusions, stating, "The principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/JLF before their account is classified as fraud."

High Court disposed of the petition, quashing any actions taken against the petitioner, including FIR registration and fraud declaration. However, it clarified that the impugned circular on 'Fraud - Classification and Reporting' would remain in existence, and respondents could proceed in accordance with law and the principles laid down in the State Bank of India judgment.

Date of Decision: 8th September 2023

RAJIV SONI vs ICICI Bank Chairman

Latest Legal News