SHYAMA AGARWAL Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions have been filed seeking remedies against the ICICI bank. The petitioners allege that they did not borrow any sums of money from the bank. A housing loan was applied for and sanctioned. The loan, however, was not availed by the petitioners. Notwithstanding this, the ICICI bank has wrongfully and illegally, according to the petitioner, encashed and appropriated four postdated cheques towards alleged installments from the petitioners. The actions of the bank are stated to be in violation of the contract between the parties, apart from being utterly dishonest. The petitioners seek refund of the four instalments wrongfully appropriated by the ICICI bank.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent bank raises objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions and submits that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be issued against the ICICI bank. The bank is not State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is argued that no financial assistance has been provided by the State to the bank. The ICICI bank does not enjoy any monopoly status in the banking industry and does not have State protection either. The State has no role in the management of the Bank. The entire shareholding of the Bank is privately held. Despite the functions of the ICICI bank being regulated under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the transactions with the public at large are governed by private contracts.

(3.) In support of his argument, counsel for the bank has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. -Vs- Sagar Thomas and Others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733, particularly paragraph 8 thereof. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas -Vs- Indian Institute of Chemical Biology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111. It is alternatively argued that even assuming for the sake of argument that a writ petition can be maintained against the ICICI Bank, the same should not be entertained for availability of efficacious alternative remedy in the form of a complaint under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 or under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It responds to the demurrer raised.