Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) – Appellate Side

Order Date: 02 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Monoranjan Roy vs. HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. (including the Reserve Bank of India as respondent No.2).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (W.P.A. No. 26106 of 2025) challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 13 October 2025 issued by HDFC Bank directing the petitioner to show cause why his account should not be categorised and reported as fraud under RBI Guidelines.
  • Background:
  • The Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of a Forensic Audit report dated 26 May 2025 prepared by R. Dokania and Company, covering transactions of Pincon Spirits Limited (PSL) from FY 2013‑2018.
  • The petitioner replied on 24 October 2025, stating that PSL’s directors (including the petitioner) were arrested on 2 November 2017 and that the Directorate of Economic Offences (DEO), West Bengal, had seized the company’s offices, production units and stocks, preventing the petitioner from furnishing documents.
  • The petitioner asserted that PSL had a satisfactory credit history with the consortium of banks, and the NPA status was not due to intentional fraud but to production stoppage caused by the DEO’s actions.
  • HDFC Bank, in a letter dated 12 January 2018, informed the DEO that the consortium banks had completed due‑diligence and requested revocation of the DEO’s sealing orders, claiming no criminal case was registered against the company.
  • The DEO seized stocks on 31 January 2018 despite the consortium’s security interest; the company faced multiple litigations and a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) before the NCLT, Kolkata.
  • NCLT order dated 19 February 2020 observed that the attachment of assets by the DEO lacked merit and directed detachment of the property.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: argued that the forensic audit was inconclusive, prepared solely for confidential use, violated natural justice, and that the bank should disclose material relied upon (citing T. Takano v. SEBI and Milind Patel v. Union Bank of India).
  • Bank’s Submissions: contended that the forensic audit was enclosed with the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner had replied in detail without requesting documents, and the 21‑day period complied with Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management. The bank cited precedents (Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, Hemant Kanoria v. Karnataka Bank) to argue the writ was not maintainable.
  • Key Judicial Observations:
  • The forensic audit concluded that PSL engaged in a “well‑orchestrated scheme of financial misrepresentation, fraud and fund diversion” based on available evidence.
  • The petitioner did not dispute the audit’s conclusions, nor did he request the bank to supply the audit report or any other documents.
  • The court noted that the petitioner’s reply merely sought personal interaction with a Kolkata bank official and did not raise any substantive challenge to the audit.
  • Prior DEO actions, NCLT orders, and the liquidation proceedings were recounted, including the Tribunal’s order (30 September 2019) imposing a cost of Rs.5 lacs and the February 2020 order directing detachment of assets.
  • The court reiterated the principles from T. Takano on transparency and natural justice, but found no breach in the present case because the petitioner had been served with the audit report and had ample opportunity to respond.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed WPA No. 26106 of 2025, finding no justification to interfere with HDFC Bank’s Show Cause Notice dated 13 October 2025.
  • Parties are directed to act on the server copy of the judgment posted on the official court website; no further relief is granted.

Topics: Bank Fraud Categorisation, Show Cause Notice, Judicial Review