LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kiran Kriplani & Ashok Kriplani, Advocate vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (formerly Sangli Bank Ltd.)

Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:7907Decided 16 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
RFA 1006/2025CNR: DLHC010858912025
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Background

Two borrowers who had taken share-secured loans from a bank in 1994 sued the bank for Rs. 5 lakh in damages, alleging that the bank's earlier 1997 recovery suit against them (which was eventually dismissed in 2012, after the bank was found to have sold pledged shares without proper notice and concealed material facts) was itself "false, frivolous and vexatious," causing them humiliation and mental agony, particularly since one of them had since become a practicing advocate and had to defend himself in court as a litigant.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that, in substance (despite the plaintiffs' denials), their suit was really one for "malicious prosecution," which requires proving not just that the earlier suit failed, but that it was brought without any reasonable or probable cause and with an improper motive. The evidence showed the borrowers had genuinely taken the loans, admittedly failed to repay them, and never instructed the bank to sell the pledged shares, so the bank's earlier suit, whatever its procedural flaws, was not baseless or malicious; it simply failed on technical/procedural grounds (prematurity and improper notice), which does not equal malice. The claim was also time-barred (governed by a one-year limitation period for malicious prosecution claims, filed after that period had passed), and the damages claimed were unsupported by adequate evidence. The appeal against the trial court's dismissal was rejected.

Lesson Learnt

Simply because a lawsuit against you eventually fails or is found to have procedural defects does not mean you can later sue the other party for "malicious prosecution": you must separately prove the case was baseless from the start and driven by improper motive, and such claims must be filed quickly (within one year of the original case ending).

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case