Dharmendra Hansraj Singh And ANR v. Icici Bank Ltd

901-WP-2104-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2104 OF 2026 Dharmendra Hansraj Singh and Anr ..

Petitioners V/s.

ICICI Bank Ltd ..

Respondent ------------------- None for the Petitioners.

Ms. Rutvi Soni, i/b Mr. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co, for the Respondent - ICICI Bank.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2026.02.16 11:01:13 +0530 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD --------------------

CORAM

:

MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE :

13TH FEBRUARY 2026.

PC:

1.

This writ petition was filed by the petitioner (original borrowers) seeking to challenge actions undertaken by the respondent - bank (secured creditor), under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2.

This petition was mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondent- bank, informing this Court that due to passage of time, the petition has been rendered infructuous as the petitioners repaid the dues payable to the respondent-bank and accordingly, the respondentbank had also issued a letter dated 24th December 2024 to the Petitioner No. 1 stating that the respondent-bank no longer had any claim against the petitioners with respect to the secured asset. Sweety

901-WP-2104-2026.doc 3.

In that light, we directed the present petition to be listed today in the supplementary list and we requested the learned counsel for the respondent- bank to inform the learned counsel representing the petitioners about listing of the petition today. 4.

The learned counsel for respondent- bank confirms the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners was informed about the listing of the petition today and the assertion on behalf of the respondentbank that the petition itself has been rendered infructuous. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

5.

We find that in the light of the contents of the letter dated 24th December 2024, tendered by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, which is taken on record and marked 'X', nothing survives in this petition. We find that in the said letter, respondent-bank has certified that the petitioners have repaid the amounts due from them and therefore, the bank no longer has any claim against the petitioners. 6.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. We have also taken on record a copy of the e-mail sent on behalf of the respondent-bank to the learned counsel representing the petitioners.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Sweety