Ajazul Haque Khan vs ICICI Bank Limited

Judgment text excerpt

936-CARBP(L)-16052-2026 .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16052 OF 2026 Ajazul Haque Khan …Petitioner Versus ICICI Bank Limited …Respondent Mr. Vijay S. Tiwari, a/w Mr. Aayush Pandey for the Petitioner. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. Resham Vasant Savla i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. Advocates for Respondent, ICICI Bank Ltd. CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE: MAY 7, 2026 Oral Judgement: Context and Factual Background: 1. This is a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) impugning an order dated January 15, 2026 (“Impugned Order”) under Section 17 of the Act, attaching various bank accounts associated with the Petitioner’s income-tax Permanent Account Number. The Impugned Order was passed ex parte, by an arbitrator Page 1 of 16 MAY 7, 2026 Rutuja Borse 936-CARBP(L)-16052-2026 .doc appointed by an online dispute resolution platform (“ ODR Platform”) appointed by the Respondent, ICICI Bank Ltd. (“ ICICI”). 2. The Petitioner has accused ICICI of mis-selling, incentivising him to retire his pre-existing loans from other lenders, only to realise that he did not get a better deal because those lenders charged him additionally for re- financing the loan, which was not explained to him. He also contends that monies were actually not fully given to him and the earlier lenders charged him additionally as well. 3. The Impugned Order is cryptic. It simply states that ICICI lent a personal loan to the Petitioner and it has not been repaid, and goes on to direct a disclosure of assets, furnishing of security in three days, and a debit freeze on all bank accounts. Based on this, Axis Bank would freeze the account of the Petiti