Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the PDF of this judgement would include the following key elements: Case Title and Parties: The judgement involves a dispute between the Manager of ICICI Bank Ltd. (appellant) and Prakash Kaur & others (respondents), arising from a loan transaction for the purchase of a truck (!) (!) . Facts and Background: The case details the default in loan repayment, the seizure of the vehicle by the bank, and the subsequent legal and procedural issues, including allegations of conspiracy and misuse of force in repossession (!) (!) . Legal Issues: The core issues concern whether the bank employed lawful procedures in repossessing the vehicle, the legality of the use of force, and the proper conduct of recovery agents under the law (!) (!) . Court’s Directions and Findings: The court emphasizes that recovery of loans and repossession must be conducted through lawful means, discourages the use of force and strong-arm tactics, and highlights the importance of following due legal procedures (!) (!) . Remedies and Orders: The court permits the release of the vehicle upon deposit of a specified amount, orders a final account reconciliation, and directs the bank to refrain from using unlawful methods of recovery. It also quashes any FIR registered in violation of these principles (!) (!) (!) . Legal Principles: The judgement underscores that banks cannot employ goondas or recovery agents who resort to violence or abusive language, and that all repossession actions must adhere to legal procedures. It also stresses the importance of accountability and oversight in recovery practices (!) (!) . Remarks on Banking Procedures: The judgement discusses the need for banks to adopt transparent, fair, and lawful recovery methods, including proper licensing and training of recovery agents, and the importance of regulatory oversight to prevent abuse (!) (!) (!) (!) . Concluding Remarks: The court highlights that social responsibility and adherence to the rule of law are paramount in banking operations, and that answerability and accountability should be core to banking practices, especially in recovery procedures (!) (!) . This summary reflects the essential content and legal principles contained within the judgement, suitable for inclusion in a PDF document.

Manager, ICICI Bank LTD. vs Prakash Kaur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 266

Manager, ICICI Bank LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Kaur – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the PDF of this judgement would include the following key elements:

Case Title and Parties: The judgement involves a dispute between the Manager of ICICI Bank Ltd. (appellant) and Prakash Kaur & others (respondents), arising from a loan transaction for the purchase of a truck (!) (!) .
Facts and Background: The case details the default in loan repayment, the seizure of the vehicle by the bank, and the subsequent legal and procedural issues, including allegations of conspiracy and misuse of force in repossession (!) (!) .
Legal Issues: The core issues concern whether the bank employed lawful procedures in repossessing the vehicle, the legality of the use of force, and the proper conduct of recovery agents under the law (!) (!) .
Court’s Directions and Findings: The court emphasizes that recovery of loans and repossession must be conducted through lawful means, discourages the use of force and strong-arm tactics, and highlights the importance of following due legal procedures (!) (!) .
Remedies and Orders: The court permits the release of the vehicle upon deposit of a specified amount, orders a final account reconciliation, and directs the bank to refrain from using unlawful methods of recovery. It also quashes any FIR registered in violation of these principles (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Principles: The judgement underscores that banks cannot employ goondas or recovery agents who resort to violence or abusive language, and that all repossession actions must adhere to legal procedures. It also stresses the importance of accountability and oversight in recovery practices (!) (!) .
Remarks on Banking Procedures: The judgement discusses the need for banks to adopt transparent, fair, and lawful recovery methods, including proper licensing and training of recovery agents, and the importance of regulatory oversight to prevent abuse (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Concluding Remarks: The court highlights that social responsibility and adherence to the rule of law are paramount in banking operations, and that answerability and accountability should be core to banking practices, especially in recovery procedures (!) (!) .

This summary reflects the essential content and legal principles contained within the judgement, suitable for inclusion in a PDF document.

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—I had the privilege of perusing the judgment proposed by my learned Brother - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir. While respectfully concurring with the conclusion arrived by the learned Judge, I would like to add the following few paragraphs:-

1) Regarding the role of Recovery Agents – use of abusive language – due process of law RBI guidelines.

FACTORS :

*The issue of Banks employing alternate means of recovery other than by due process of law i.e., either through Courts, Tribunals, Adalats or Commissions is an issue that has to be viewed from two angles (1) from the angle of the common man and (2) from the angle of the bank.

REASONS :

*First of all, the entrance of the multi national banks into the country has spread the culture of Credit Cards, Loans on an unimaginable level where rather than the rich, it is the middle class, the lower middle class and the lower class who are at the receiving end of the bonanzas promised by the Banks.

*Inadequate information on the Credit Card application, Loan Applications, Advertisements or even while meeting the bankers in person in respect of the lending rates and hidden charges, leads to this class of people being

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

[All cases in the list consistently reference two primary precedents positively: **ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 711** and **Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. [Vijayalaxmi or similar]**. These are cited as binding authority across nearly every entry.]

**ICICI Bank Ltd. VS Pratap Singh Thakur - Consumer (2007)**: Followed; cites ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur approvingly on abolition of seizure via private agencies ("Prakash Kaur & Ors.1 has held that 'while abolition of the system (seizure of vehicles through some private agency...'").

**Shiv Shanker Soni VS State - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 1787**: Followed; relies on ICICI Bank judgment ("According to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICICI Bank Ltd.").

**Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. VS S. Vijayalaxmi - Consumer (2007)**: Followed; cites Prakash Kaur on deprecating hiring musclemen recovery agents ("Prakash Kaur and Others2 that practice of hiring of recovery agents who are musclemen is deprecated...").

**Rajendra Pal Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1639**: Followed; argues lower court erred ignoring ICICI ("decision of the Apex Court given in the case of ICICi").

**Vijay Shrivastava VS State of Madhay Pradesh - Crimes (2007)**: Followed; cites Apex Court in ICICI v. Prakash Kaur deprecating recovery procedures ("learned counsel... has pointed out the Apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur,1 has deprecated...").

**The Operator Manager, Auto Loan Consumer Service Department ABN Amro Bank VS Praveen Khaitan - Consumer (2007)**: Neutral citation of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. (breach of contract context, no negative treatment).

**Pinki Devi VS State Of Bihar - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 127**: Followed; relies on ICICI v. Prakash Kaur for release of vehicle ("judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI").

**K. Rajini VS Inspector of Police, Team-III, CCB, Chennai - Madras (2008)**: Followed; cites Prakash Kaur and ICICI on recovery from borrower ("Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. Prakash Kaur (2007 (2) SCC 711)").

**K. Habbibunnisa VS Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Consumer (2008)**: Followed; quotes ICICI v. Prakash Kaur on legal procedures ("Prakash Kaur & Ors.3 opined: 'The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law...'").

**Mahesh Kumar VS Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 1354**: Followed; recognizes ICICI v. Prakash Kaur ("Prakash Kaur &others, (2007) 2 SCC 711 while recognizing...").

**Rampal Singh VS State of M. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 1187**: Followed; cites for recovery guidelines ("ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others [(2007)2 SCC 711]... held that for recovery...").

**Capital Trust Ltd. VS Sanjay Dutt - Consumer (2009)**, **HDFC Bank Ltd. VS Balwinder Singh - Consumer (2009)**: Followed; lists ICICI v. Prakash Kaur alongside other supporting cases ("In ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur & Ors.4").

**Tata Motors Ltd. VS Indrasen Choubey - Consumer (2009)**: Followed; quotes Apex Court in ICICI v. Prakash Kaur ("The Apex Court in ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur and Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 771 has held...").

**RAFIQ AHMAD VS UNION OF INDIA - 2010 0 Supreme(All) 1400**, **Manish Jain VS Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. - Consumer (2010)**, **Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. VS Yusuf Masih - Consumer (2010)**, **Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. VS Babu - 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 1036**, **Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. VS S. Vijayalaxmi - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 1201**, **Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. VS S. Vijayalaxmi - Consumer (2011)**, **RAM UMRAO VS MANAGING DIRECTOR INDUSLAND BANK LTD. - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 406**, **Santosh Gaharwar VS State - 2012 0 Supreme(MP) 790**, **INDIA BULLS VS KEDAR DUTT BHATT - 2012 0 Supreme(UK) 261**, **Magma Fincorp Ltd. VS Ravi Pratap Shahi - Consumer (2012)**, **Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited Rep By Its Legal Manager R. Kumaran VS Jaffer Khan - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1522**, **Citicorp finance (India) Ltd Rep By Its Manager Chennai VS Padmanabhan Nair - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1554**, **Sundaram Finance Limited VS P. C. Benny - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1563**, **Hinduja Leyland Finance Rep By Its Authorised Representative R. Kumaran VS Kailash Chandra Sethi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1564**, **MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICES LTD VS IRISH GROVER - 2013 0 Supreme(HP) 326**, **Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. , Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Ali Abbas Kashani VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Public Prosecutor - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 922**, **Someshwara Spun Pvt. Ltd. VS Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Sterling Centre Branch, Worli, Mumbai - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 1271**, **Jawahar Singh VS United Bank of India - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 481**, **Jawahar Singh VS United Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)**, **General Manager, M/s. L & T Finance Ltd. VS Rampada Maity - Consumer (2016)**, **Magma Fincorp Limited VS State Of Bihar - 2016 0 Supreme(Pat) 1582**, **Bhaskar Thondoor VS Hinduja Leyland Finance - Consumer (2017)**, **Indrajeet Kumar s/o Bharat Prasad VS State of Bihar - 2018 0 Supreme(Pat) 18**, **Audio Voice India Private Limited VS Vivek Khanna - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 88**, **Ramdas Urkudaji Gajbhiye VS L&T Finance Ltd - Consumer (2018)**, **Magma Fincorp Ltd. VS Naziya Parvin - Consumer (2018)**, **Sri Kant Singh, S/o Late Nand Kumar Singh VS Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Near Income Tax Golamber - 2018 0 Supreme(Pat) 624**, **Icici Bank Limited VS V Square Development Company Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1877**, **ICICI BANK LTD VS HEMA GERA - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2125**, **ICICI BANK LTD VS NANDINI ACHARYA - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2126**, **Binod Tater S/o Dedraj Tater VS Veerabadra S/o Siddappa - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 857**, **Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services VS State of J&K - 2018 0 Supreme(J&K) 766**, **Delhi Development Authority VS Engineering & Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 3132**, **Upendra Kumar Singh VS Shree Ram Equipment Finance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2019)**, **ICICI Bank Limited VS Jetesh Prasher - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 2532**, **Amandeep Singh Bains VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 45**, **S. K. Sampathkumar VS Indo Asain Finance Ltd, Chennai - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 110**, **Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. VS Pannalal Baghel - Consumer (2020)**, **Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. VS Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2210**, **Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. VS Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1964**, **MAGMA FINCORP LTD. VS RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI - 2020 6 Supreme 257**, **Jitendra Singh Dhillon VS State of M. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 1106**, **Jitendra Singh Dhillon VS State Of M. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 783**, **Shaikh Sadulla Abdul Gafur Samda VS Tata Motor Finance Ltd. - Consumer (2020)**, **Adapa Durga VS HDB Financial Services Ltd. - 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 931**, **Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. VS Nikil Patra - Consumer (2021)**, **Allahabad Bank VS District Magistrate, Ludhiana - 2021 0 Supreme(P&H) 1518**, **Md. Jamal Uddin, S/o Abdul Khalek VS State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 125**, **Pramod Kumar Sahoo VS Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Districtkhurda - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 609**, **Prabhati Dehury VS Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 150**, **Sashi Kant Todi @ Sashi Babu Financer, son of Shri Satyanarayan Todi VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 121**, **Balram Bari @ Balaram Barick VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 165**, **Dhananjay Seth VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 368**, **Pahlan Ali S/o Late Raizuddin VS HDB Financial Services Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 786**, **Gursharan Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3055**, **Medisetty Krishnaveni VS State Bank of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 332**, **Shishan Pal VS State of Haryana - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 1173**, **Krishna Bisai VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 499**, **Vilas Gangaram Shegle VS Telco Ltd. (Tata Motors Limited) - Consumer (2025)**, **Tvl.Shriram Finance Ltd. vs State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (East) Division, Chennai. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62350**: All follow/cite ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 711 approvingly as precedent deprecating illegal seizures, requiring legal procedures, or issuing guidelines (e.g., "disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur"; "Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur... has clearly depicted"; "relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd."; "The Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur has held"; "practice of hiring recovery agents... deprecated" – uniform positive treatment).

**Explanation for category**: Over 90% of entries positively cite ICICI v. Prakash Kaur as authoritative (e.g., "held that", "deprecated", "laid down", "relied upon", "opined"). Citicorp Maruti is similarly treated as supportive. No negative treatment observed.

**Md. Jamal Uddin, S/o Abdul Khalek VS State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 125**: Distinguished; notes Prakash Kaur facts differ ("In such view of the matter, the reference to the decision in Prakash Kaur[supra] is found not of relevance in the fact situation").

**Vijay Shrivastava VS State of Madhay Pradesh - Crimes (2007)** (partial): Distinguished on facts; ICICI pronounced but not applied due to seizure by police, not finance company ("in view of a concurrent finding that the vehicle was seized by the police and not be the Finance Company").

**Explanation for category**: Explicit language limits applicability based on factual differences ("not of relevance in the fact situation").

2007 Supreme(SC) 266

Manager, ICICI Bank LTD. – AppellantVersusPrakash Kaur – Respondent

Judicial Analysis

Manager, ICICI Bank LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Kaur – Respondent