RAJ KUMAR ROY vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10th March, 2025 + W.P.(C) 2973/2025 & CM APPL. 14086-14087/2025 RAJ KUMAR ROY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Ms. Ishita Jain, Mr. Ravi Nair, Ms. Diksha Dadu and Mr. Mudassir, Advocates. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nisha Sharma and Ms. Tanya Chowdhary, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Akash Mohan Srivastav, Advocates for respondent No.2/IDBI Bank (through V.C.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The present petition challenges the manner in which the bank account of petitioner, had been declared ‘fraud’, vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2/IDBI Bank. 2. According to petitioner, the decision is in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of the Master Directions and is also in the teeth of the specific observations appearing in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 342. The prime grievance is qua not supplying some very material documents including Forensic Audit Report. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2973/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.03.2025 17:50:56 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/RBI appears on advance notice. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/IDBI Bank has also joined the proceedings through video conferencing. 4. Mr. Barua, learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits, at the very outset, that the following documents were not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order:- i. Forensic Audit Report (FAR) dated March 20, 2019 ii. Supplementary FARs dated September 13, 2019 & November 14, 2019 (SFARs) iii. Transaction Audit