IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 25902 of 2025

Monoranjan Roy

Vs.

Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Mr. Joydip Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya

Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee

Mr. Subhrojyoti Mukherjee

Ms. Deblina Chattaraj

Mr. Sayan Banerjee

Mr. Suman Majumdar

Mr. Shraman Mukherjee

....For the petitioner.

Mr. Dipanjan Datta

Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury

Ms. Esaha Basak

….For the Bank of Baroda.

Mr. Aman Agarwal

Mr. Debabrata Das

Mr. Arunabha Sarkar

2

Mr. Pratick Acharjee

….For the RBI.

Hearing Concluded On : 16.06.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 02.07.2026

Judgment Uploaded On : 02.07.2026

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Show

Cause Notice dated 4

th

July, 2025, wherein the bank has directed the

petitioner to show cause within 21 days as to why the account of the

petitioner should not be categorized and reported as fraud as per the

Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “RBI”) Guidelines and

the order dated 18

th September, 2025, reporting the account and name

of the petitioner as fraud to RBI.

2. Mr. Joydip Kar, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rudraman

Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner

submits that the bank has issued the show cause notice on the basis of

the Forensic Audit report but the Forensic Audit report is not

conclusive and the Auditor has mentioned in the report that the report

has been prepared solely for the purpose of providing selected

information on a confidential basis to which it is issued and should not

be used for any other purpose without their consent.

3. Mr. Kar submits that on 4

th

July, 2025, the respondent no. 2 has

issued show cause notice to the petitioner with respect to the

3

transactions from 1

st April, 2013 to 31

st March, 2018, on the basis of

the Forensic Audit report dated 26

th May, 2025 conducted by R.

Dokania and Company. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has

submitted a detailed reply on 9

th July, 2025, stating that the M/s.

Pincon Spirit Limited (hereinafter referred to as “PSL”) had been

conducting its business activities with due diligence, integrity and best

efforts. It was informed to the bank that the petitioner and other

directors of PSL had been arrested on 2

nd

November, 2017 and 19

th

April, 2018 respectively and all supporting documents with regard to

the operation of PSL and the petitioner has been seized by the

Directorate of Economic Offences (hereinafter referred to as “DEO”). It

was also informed that the offices and production units of PSL along

with business units of the subsidiary/associate companies were sealed

by the DEO in the month of November/December, 2017, due to which

it is not possible for the petitioner to provide documents with regard to

transactions of the company.

4. Mr. Kar submits that it was also informed that the loan account of the

company has a long satisfactory credit standing with the consortium

member banks including the Bank of Baroda and the account of the

company turning into NPA is not due to intentional or willful and

malafide motive or default on the part of the management of the

company. He submits that due to stoppage of production at the

manufacturing units of Kolkata, the company’s revenue generation has

been adversely affected.

4

5. Mr. Kar submits that on 18

th September, 2025, an impugned order is

issued by the Bank of Baroda intimating to report the name of the

company/ the petitioner as fraud to RBI. He submits that the reply

submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the bank.

6. Mr. Kar submits that on receipt of the impugned order dated 18

th

September, 2025, the petitioner again sent an e-mail indicating the

details which the bank has not considered the same at the time of

issuance of the impugned order dated 18

th

September, 2025.

7. Mr. Kar submits that during the consortium meeting held on 31

st

January, 2018, the DEO, West Bengal has seized the stocks at the

plants of the company, despite such reports, no action was taken by

the Bank of Baroda or any other member bank of the consortium

against the DEO, West Bengal for safeguarding the stocks which were

hypothecated to the consortium as prime security. He submits that the

company has been impleaded in a number of litigations with reference

to its operation. The alleged corporate debtors have also initiated

Corporation Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the company

before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata. The said

application was taken up for consideration on 30

th

September, 2019,

along with other applications wherein it is mentioned that the DEO,

West Bengal had attached the property of the corporate debtor (PSL) as

if it is the proceed of crime under the provisions of West Bengal

Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act,

2013.

5

8. Mr. Kar submits that the Tribunal by its order dated 19

th February,

2020, observed that the contention that the assets attached by the

respondent therein are assets obtained by the corporate debtor

company out of the funds collected illegally by the group company

under the contrail of Pincon Groups seems to be devoid of any merit in

the absence of any supporting evidence and material. The Tribunal also

observed that the property of the corporate debtor attached by the

respondent is liable to be detached and as such the DEO was directed

to detach the property vide notice dated 16

th

April, 2018 and to restore

possession thereof to the liquidator.

9. Mr. Kar submits that on perusal of the Forensic Audit report, it reveals

that the said report has been prepared in the absence of all necessary

documents and evidences. He submits that Forensic Audit report is an

incomplete document and the same cannot be the basis of issuance of

the show cause notice. He further submits that the show cause notice

is issued in violation of principles of natural justice.

10. Mr. Kar in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment in the

case of T. Takano Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and

Another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 162 and submits that a quasi-

judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been

relied upon at the stage of adjudication. An ipse dixit of the authority

that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its

liability to disclose such materials if it is relevant to and has a nexus to

the action that is taken by the authority.

6

11. Mr. Kar further relied upon the judgment in the case of Milind Patel

Vs. Union Bank of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

Bom 745 and submits that the purpose of disclosure of information is

not merely individualistic, that is to prevent errors in the verdict but is

also towards fulfilling the larger institutional purpose of fair trial and

transparency.

12. Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Learned Advocate representing the Bank of Baroda

submits that the show cause notice dated 4

th

July, 2025, was issued

detailing the allegation against the petitioner. In the show cause notice,

Forensic Audit report was enclosed, thus the petitioner cannot say that

the Forensic Audit report is not served upon the petitioner.

13. Mr. Datta submits that the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to

the show cause notice dated 4

th July, 2025, and submits that all the

issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is agitated in

his reply. In the said reply, the petitioner has not prayed for supply of

any documents.

14. Mr. Datta submits that as per Master Directions on Fraud Risk

Management in commercial bank, reasonable time of 21 days was

provided to the petitioner for submission of his reply to the show cause

notice and only after receipt of notice, the bank shall consider the

request of the petitioner and after giving an opportunity to the

petitioner, the bank will consider whether the entities will be declared

as fraud or not. He submits that instead of waiting for the decision of

7

the bank, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, thus the writ

petition is not maintainable.

15. Mr. Datta in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment

in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty

Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 and submits that in

some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a

show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for

some other reason if it is wholly illegal.

16. Mr. Datta has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the

case of Hemant Kanoria & Anr. Karnataka Bank Limited in WPA

11390 of 2024 dated 10

th February, 2026 wherein this Court held

that without submitting any reply and without requesting the

respondent for supply of documents, has filed writ petition, and this

Court dismissed the said writ petition. He submits that in the present

case, the petitioner has filed show cause reply without any allegation

that no document has supplied or requested for any documents.

17. The respondent bank has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner

on the basis of the Forensic Audit report of R. Dokania and Company

dated 26

th

May, 2025. As per Forensic Audit report, the Bank has

appointed R. Dokania and Co., Chartered Accountants to conduct a

Forensic Audit of the books of accounts of the Borrower from 1

st

April,

2013 to 31

st March, 2018.

8

18. The petitioner has submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice by

dealing with each and every allegation. The petitioner has not informed

that no documents are available with the petitioner or the petitioner

required further documents. The petitioner has also not taken the plea

that the Forensic Audit report is not conclusive or cannot be relied

upon. On the other hand, the petitioner in his reply requested for

details of the official of HDFC bank for personal discussion and

interaction with the bank official at Kolkata instead of Bangalore.

19. In the Forensic Audit report, it is recorded that:

“i) Non-Compliance of Section 137 of the

Companies Act, 2013

As per domain search, it has been observed

that the Borrower have last filed its financial

statements for the financial year ended on

31.03.2017 and no Annual General Meeting (AGM)

has been conducted for the financial year 2017-

2018. As per relevant section of the Companies Act,

a private limited company has to file its financial

statements with Registrar of Companies (ROC)

within 30 days of holding its AGM and the last

date by which AGM is to be held is six (6) months

from the end of financial year.

Not conducting AGM and non-filing of financial

statement with ROC by the Borrower has violated

section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013.

i) Unusual Addition of Fixed Assets

We have received the financial statement in

XBRL format as extracted from the public domain

and have observed that the there is an addition of

fixed assets by Rs.52.15 lakhs for the financial

year ended on 31.03.2014 and Rs.18.94 crores for

the financial year ended on 31.03.2017.

9

The Borrower have not provided us with the

proper justification and rationale behind such huge

expense in fixed assets for the financial year ended

on 31.03.2017 along with supporting documents

like invoice copy, challan copy, present location of

fixed asstes, insurance copy, etc. In the absence of

proper justification and supporting documents,

addition of fixed assets by Rs. 18.94 crores for the

financial year ended on 31.03.2017 appears to be

suspicious in nature.”

20. After receipt of the impugned order dated 18

th

September, 2025, the

petitioner has again submitted an e-mail dated 10

th

October, 2025,

stating as follows:

“a. The Original Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 15.50

Crores sanctioned by E-Vijaya Bank in 2015

was decided to be reduced to Rs. 9.50 crores

during the Consortium meeting held in

2015/2016 subsequent to the sanction and

based on the same, the Bank had reduced the

CC Limit from Rs. 15.50 Crores to Rs. 9.50

Crores.

b. I do not understand as to how with a limit of Rs.

15.50 crores/ Rs. 9.50 crores, payments

amounting to Rs. 27.03 crores can be

made/justified. Had these payments of the

amount of Rs. 27.03 crores been made, the CC

a/c would have been overdrawn which was not.

c. This justifies that all payments made were

genuine trade & business-related payments for

which both debit & credit summations were

reflected in the CC a/c from time to time.

d. I understand that the concerned Branch/Zonal

Office of the Bank might have been regularly

monitoring the transactions in the CC a/c (being

a Consortium a/c) and noting of this nature, as

pointed out in your communication, was ever

noticed/informed by the Bank at any point of

time during the conduct & operations of the CC

a/c with the Bank.

10

e. Level of Trade Receivables & Trade Payables

were in consonance with the business

levels/sales & purchase volumes of the

Company from time to time, which was justified

& confirmed in the Stock Audit reports given by

the Stock Auditor for the Stock Audit which was

assigned by the Lead Bank at periodic intervals

as well as in the Due Diligence Audit Report

conducted by the Leader Bank during May-June

2017 & the findings of the Auditors, with no

major deficiencies, were discussed & minutised

in the Consortium Meeting held on 07.08.2017. I

understand that a Copy of the Stock Audit cum

Due Diligence Report must be available with your

Bank which may please be perused for

comments on level of Trade Receivables & Trade

Payables.

f. Debtor Confirmation would have been provided if

asked for by your Bank/Consortium at any point

of time.

g. During Several Consortium meetings (wherein

Your Bank-E-Vijaya Bank was also a

participant), including the Consortium Meeting

held on 27.06.2017, the Consortium

acknowledged that the borrower account of

Pincon Spirit Limited is a Standard & Performing

asset with all Banks including your Bank.

h. Consortium minutes as stated above may please

be referred to for relevant details in this respect.

i. Your Bank/Consortium had never resorted to

Legal action against the DEO, Kolkata although

one of the member Banks had opined for filling

application with Calcutta High Court during the

Consortium Meeting held on 15.03.2018.

j. No action was taken by your Bank/Consortium for

safeguarding the Stocks (which were part of

Primary Security) at the plants which were

illegally seized by DEO, Kolkata. Your Bank was

aware of this Incident since it was discussed &

minutised during the Consortium Meeting held on

31.01.2018, wherein your Bank was also a

participant."

11

In the said e-mail also, the petitioner has not taken any ground

that the Forensic Audit report is not conclusive, without considering all

documents or the petitioner required further documents.

21. Directorate of Economic Offences, West Bengal, has initiated

investigation with regard to the transactional operation of the PSL and

seized the stocks and plants of the PSL. The DEO, filed an application

before the Tribunal being CA (IB) No. 577/KB/2019 and prayed for

dismissal of the CIRP proceeding initiated against the petitioner being

C.P. (IB )No. 93/KB/2018. The Learned Tribunal by an order dated 30

th

September, 2019, passed the following order:

“14. A very look at the name of the company

reveals that Sl. No. (e) (5th company) name is

Pincon Infrastructure Ltd. The Corporate Debtor

is Pincon Spirits Limited. The Corporate Debtor

company was Incorporated under the provisions of

the Companies Act, 1956 for carrying on business

of manufacturing, importing, exporting and

manufacturing of every kind of spirit. It has come

out in evidence that Corporate Debtor is not doing

any financial service business activities as alleged.

There is no material furnished before us to prove

that Corporate Debtor company is a chit fund

company or a financial service provider comes

under the purview of the 'WBPIDFE Act'. No

claimant also came forward claiming refund of

deposit if any deposited in the CD company. In the

absence of sufficient materials to prove that the

Corporate Debtor in any manner whatsoever come

within the scope of purview of 'WBPIDFE Act' we

are unable to hold that the proceedings initiated by

this Adjudicating Authority is illegal and improper.

23. The Resolution Professional though made

his efforts to get back the assets of the Corporate

Debtor from the 'DEO, WB', but he failed in having

any access to the books of account, without which

he could not verify the claim received from the

creditors and could not complete their valuation

12

because of the sole reason of non-cooperation of the

'DEO, WB' the inability of the Resolution

Professional in not getting a successful resolution

applicant cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we have

no other alternative other than to pass an order of

Liquidation.

(j) CA (IB) Nos. 577/KB/2019 is dismissed

with cost of Rs.5 lacs payable within two

months from the date of receipt of the copy of

the order to the account of the CD either by e-

payment facility into bank account of the

corporate debtor or by way of DD, failing

which the Liquidator can realise the said

amount from the applicant in accordance

with applicable law.”

22. The Liquidator has filed an application before the Learned Tribunal

being CA (IB) No. 1741/KB/2018 for de-attachment of the assets of the

Corporate Debtor under Liquidation. Learned Tribunal by an order

dated 19

th February, 2020, disposed of the said application by passing

the following order:

“9. From a reading of section 3 of ‘WBPIDFE

Act’, it appears to us that this provision is

inconsistent with section 14 of the I & B Code and

therefore, Section 14 as well as Sub Section (5) of

Section 33 of the Code will prevail over Section 3 of

‘WBPIDFE Act’. Therefore, it appears to us that all

the property of the Corporate Debtor attached by

the Respondent is liable to be de attached.

Accordingly, this application is allowed upon the

following among:-

O R D E R S

i. The Respondent Directorate of Economic

Offences, Government of West Bengal, is

hereby directed to de-attach all the properties

attached vide notice dated 16/04/2018 and

to restore possession thereof to the Liquidator

within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of

this order.

13

ii. CP (IB) No. 93/KB/2018 connected with

CA(IB) No.1741/KB/2018 is disposed of.

However, no order as to cost.”

23. In the case of T. Takano (supra), it is held that:

“28.3. Transparency and accountability : The

investigative agencies and the judicial institution

are held accountable through transparency and not

opaqueness of proceedings. Opaqueness furthers a

culture of prejudice, bias, and impunity—principles

that are antithetical to transparency. It is of utmost

importance that in a country grounded in the Rule

of Law, the institutions adopt those procedures that

further the democratic principles of transparency

and accountability. The principles of fairness and

transparency of adjudicatory proceedings are the

cornerstones of the principle of open justice. This is

the reason why an adjudicatory authority is

required to record its reasons for every judgment or

order it passes. However, the duty to be

transparent in the adjudicatory process does not

begin and end at providing a reasoned order.

Keeping a party bereft of the information that

influenced the decision of an authority undertaking

an adjudicatory function also undermines the

transparency of the judicial process. It denies the

party concerned and the public at large the ability

to effectively scrutinise the decisions of the

authority since it creates an information

asymmetry.

30. It would be fundamentally contrary to the

principles of natural justice if the relevant part of

the investigation report which pertains to the

appellant is not disclosed. The appellant has to be

given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The

requirement of a reasonable opportunity would

postulate that such material which has been and

has to be taken into account under Regulation 10

must be disclosed to the noticee. If the report of the

investigating authority under Regulation 9 has to

be considered by the Board before satisfaction is

arrived at on a possible violation of the regulations,

the principles of natural justice require due

disclosure of the report.”

14

24. The petitioner has relied upon the order passed by the Learned

Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the case

made out by the petitioner in the show cause reply is otherwise. The

petitioner has not taken the plea of appointment of Liquidator or the

documents available with the Liquidator or with the DEO. The

petitioner has not requested for supply of any documents relied by the

bank while issuance of show cause notice. In reply to show cause

notice, the petitioner only requested the bank for providing details of

the officials of the Kolkata Branch so as to enable the petitioner to

discuss personally.

25. In the case of Hemant Kanoria vs. Bank of India passed in WPA No.

28329 of 2023 dated 2

nd February, 2024, the Coordinate Bench of

this Court framed the guidelines with respect to declaring the accounts

“fraud” under the Master Directions keeping in view of the judgment

passed in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh

Agarwal and Others, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 and held that:

“64. First, a show-cause notice is to be

issued, enumerating the exact offences alleged

against the borrower/Director. If any FAR or other

document forms the basis of the show-cause, the

same is to be served along with the show-cause

notice. (Both the said criteria have, in fact, have

been satisfied in the present case in respect of BOI,

BOB and UBI.)

65. A fortnight thereafter would be ample time

to give reply to the showcause notice. In its reply,

the noticee shall, apart from addressing the

allegations and controverting those specifically,

specify the documents which are required to be

provided to the noticee by the Banks/financial

institutions. If necessary, in the reply, the

borrower/Director or promoter can reserve its rights

15

to give a further additional reply upon receiving

such documents.”

26. In the present case, the petitioner has received the show cause notice

and had submitted detailed reply of each and every allegation of the

show cause notice without questioning the Forensic Audit report or

requesting for any further document. Even after receipt of the

impugned order dated 18

th

September, 2025, the petitioner has made

detailed email to the bank and in the said email also the petitioner has

not requested for supply of any documents or the Forensic Audit Report

is not conclusive.

27. Considering the above, this Court did not find any justification to

interfere with the show cause notice issued by the bank to the

petitioner dated 4

th July, 2025 and the impugned order dated 18

th

September, 2025.

28. WPA No. 25902 of 2025 is dismissed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)