Introduction 

In the matter of Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI Bank When the bank agreed to accept her early retirement in 2018, Kochhar filed a lawsuit before a single judge asking for specific performance of the benefits and entitlements that were unconditionally provided to her. When entering into a contract with Kochhar that unconditionally granted her certain benefits, Kochhar claimed in her lawsuit that the bank was fully aware of the terms of reference and the scope of the investigation. The bank will now refuse to give Kochhar the post-retrial benefit that he had been promised earlier.

Argument Advanced

Advanced According to the appellant, the bank unilaterally broke its contractual obligation resulting from its acceptance letter. There was an urgent need for a hearing since among the perks that were unconditionally awarded to her were employee stock options that were exercisable until 2028 and one tranche which reportedly expired in April of this year.

According to the ICIC bank, Kochhar should not touch the stocks until her lawsuit is eventually heard.

Conclusion of Court 

A division bench of Bombay High Court Justices KR Shriram and Rajesh Patil pronounced the verdict upholding the order of single-judge Justice RI Chagla who had stated that Kochhar’s termination was valid.

The bench declared that the solitary judge had used his discretion judiciously and within reason. Even though they are not definitive, the observations provided about Kochhar’s behaviour are of a very grave kind. The respondent bank would suffer irreparable harm and irreparable damage if the interim reliefs requested by her were granted. Due to the respondent’s status as a publicly traded firm, the convenience balance is entirely to its advantage. The Court further decided that ICICI Bank might be ordered at that point to purchase shares from the stock market or pay any amount equal to that value to Kochhar if she were to win her lawsuit and hence dismissed the plea of Chanda Kochar and allow the bank petition.