SOMASHEKHAR G. Vs. ICICI BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE burning questions which fall for consideration are firstly, "Whether the case is barred by time - and secondly, "Whether the OPs are bound to pay a colossal amount of loan to the complainant, which they have declined to pay - Somashekhar, the complainant was a customer of ICICI Bank Ltd., opposite party No. 1, who had availed loans from the OP No. 1 on various dates between the years 2001 and 2007. The loan was repaid on various dates between the years 2003 and 2011. The complainant, with the desire to extend his business and develop his properties, approached all the opposite parties and submitted 29 applications between the years 2006 and 2011. The complainant was constrained to raise substantial amount on various dates between the years 2009 and 2010. In the 29 applications, the complainant had asked for a total sum to the tune of Rs. 6,51,78,982 for his several mega business projects and for housing purposes, between the years 2006 and 2011. The complainant has also mentioned that he would also invest in Hotel project, cement project, Hollow project, etc., and prepared a detailed plan(s), project reports and submitted the same to the opposite parties. The complainant furnished all the requisite documents. There were several rounds of discussions. The complainant was told (hat applications were being forwarded to the higher officials and the same were being processed.

(2.) THE complainant was given assurance but before the loans were sanctioned, he had raised the initial capital as back as in the year 2006, either by selling or pledging his valuable properties. The complainant entered into an agreement to sell the property bearing No. 1/6 (old number) (new number 43), situated at Shivanagar, Bangalore for a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakh, in favour of one Shivaprasad of Bangalore. Since the OPs had given him positive hopes during the years 2009 and 2010, the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakh and Rs. 5.00 lakh from V.B. Yaligar of Bangalore, on 1.3.2009 and 11.3.2009, respectively. He also borrowed a sum of Rs. 8.00 lakh from one R.M. Raviprakash of Bangalore, on 24.9.2009. He further executed a Promissory Note in favour of one Ms. Suguna.

(3.) IT transpired that the bankers were slow due to the report submitted by Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CIBIL', in short). In October, 2010, the complainant wrote to CIBIL alleging that their reports had impeded the processing of his loan applications. CIBIL replied vide letter dated 30.11.2010, that they regret their inability to process his request as the address mentioned by him does not match with the same, on the Credit Information Report (hereinafter referred to as CIR, in short). The complainant accordingly sent his address once again and waited for a long time. CIBIL, by its yet another letter, dated 24.12.2010, sought some other particulars. Thereafter, CIBIL did not respond.