In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

MAT No. 989 of 2025

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Ravindra Pratap Singh and another

Vs.

Reserve Bank of India and others

With

MAT No. 990 of 2025

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Ravindra Pratap Singh and another

Vs.

Reserve Bank of India and others

With

MAT No. 991 of 2025

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Ravindra Pratap Singh and another

Vs.

Reserve Bank of India and others

For the appellants : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Chayan Gupta,

Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya,

Mr. Pourush Banerjee,

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar

For the RBI

in MAT 990 of 2025 : Ms. Suchismita Ghosh

2

For the respondent no.2

in all the matters : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Nishi Bhankharia,

Ms. Kaazvin Kapadia,

Mr. Suryaneel Das,

Mr. Siddharth Ranade

For the

respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7

in MAT 989 of 2025 : Mr. Anirban Roy, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee,

Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar,

Mr. Debartha Chakraborty,

Mr. Shayak Mitra,

Ms. Siddhi Agarwal

For the

respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7

in MAT 990 of 2025 : Mr. Aniruddha Chakraborty,

Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar,

Mr. Debartha Chakraborty,

Ms. Siddhi Agarwal

For the

respondent nos. 5, 6 & &

in MAT 991 of 2025 : Mr. Sudhasatva Banerjee,

Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar,

Mr. Debartha Chakraborty,

Ms. Siddhi Agarwal

For the respondent no. 8

in all the matters : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Subhankar Nag,

Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi,

Mr. Sayan Bandyopadhyay

Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury,

Mr. Sanket Sarawgi,

Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee,

Ms. Yukti Agarwal

Mr. Bhavesh Garodia

Heard on : 09.12.2025 & 16.12.2025

Reserved on : 16.12.2025

Judgment on : 05.01.2026

3

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeals arise out of a common order passed in

connection with three different applications. The backdrop of the

case is that WPA No. 6088 of 2025 was filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India by the present appellant against an order

whereby the bank accounts of the appellant no.2 -Company, of

which the appellant no.1 is the director, was frozen by the

respondent no.2, that is the Axis Bank Limited.

2. Upon the said decision being taken by the Bank, the appellants

moved the banking Ombudsman of the Reserve Bank of India

(RBI), the first respondent herein. The Ombudsman turned down

the challenge on the ground that another similar proceeding on the

same issue was pending before another competent forum.

3. Challenging the action of the Bank as well as the Ombudsman‟s

decision, the writ petition was taken out, which culminated in an

order dated April 9, 2025, whereby a learned Single Judge of this

Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Axis Bank to

defreeze the Bank Account and the Dema t Account of the writ

petitioner/appellant no. 2, subject to deposit of an indemnity bond

as per the norms of the Bank either by the writ petitioners or by

the proforma respondent, keeping it open to the writ petitioners to

approach the competent forum for damages from the Bank for not

permitting the writ petitioners to operate the Bank Account,

4

thereby causing loss to the Company. It is relevant to note that the

proforma respondent no.7 before the writ court, being the

proforma respondent no.8 herein, is a Company by the name of

Vindhya Telelinks Limited (for short „VTL‟), which is the 100%

shareholder of the appellant no.2-Company, namely August Agents

Limited, and is in complete control over the appellant no.2.

4. Subsequently, upon the Bank having not implemented the said

direction, a Contempt Application bearing CPAN No. 953 of 2025

was filed by the writ petitioners/appellants. On the other hand,

Axis Bank filed an application seeking clarification of the order

dated April 9, 2025 with respect to details of the authorize d

signatories to be allowed to operate the accounts, (bearing Current

Account No. 915020046066290) and Demat Account (bearing

Account No. IN300484/28735957), upon defreezing those in terms

of the said order. The said application was numbered as CAN 1 of

2025.

5. Another application, bearing CAN 2 of 2025, was filed by the

present respondent nos. 5 to 7, namely one Krishna Damani, one

Susil Kumar Daga and one Vinod Kumar Sharma, seeking recall of

the order dated April 9, 2025 passed in the writ petition and to be

impleaded as parties to the writ petition. In the said application, it

was contended that material facts were suppressed by the writ

petitioners while obtaining the order under recall and that the

recall applicants/present respondent nos. 5 to 7, despite being

necessary parties (as the complainants on the basis of whose

5

allegations the subject accounts were frozen), were not impleaded

in the writ petition.

6. By the present impugned order dated June 9, 2025 , the learned

Single Judge of this Court observed that after hearing the

submissions of the parties, it appeared that the matter was

required to be heard. Accordingly the contempt application against

Axis Bank was kept in abeyance for the time being and it was

directed that the order dated April 9, 2025 shall not be acted upon

by any of the parties, also for the time being.

7. In the same breath, by the impugned order dated June 19, 2025,

the recall applicants/present respondent nos. 5 to 7 were directed

to be formally added as party-respondents in the writ petition and

the copy of all documents in connection with the writ petition were

directed to be served on the added respondents.

8. This court is informed that although the applications were directed

to be relisted in July 24, 2025, those have not yet been taken up

by the learned Single Judge.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that

no germane material was suppressed from the writ court. It is

argued that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 were not necessary parties

to the writ petition at all. The appellants place reliance on a co-

ordinate Bench judgment in the matter of Cardiological Society of

India and Ors. Vs Sunip Baner jee and Ors., reported at

MANU/WB/1130/2024 , in support of the proposition that in the

absence of a bank either having a claim against a constituent or a

6

lien on the bank account or the bank being obliged to obey any

instruction of the Central Bank or any order of court, a bank

cannot freeze any account of its constituent for any period at all.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant also cites a judgment of a

learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Modello

Ventures LLP vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. reported at (2023)

SCC OnLine Cal 1324, where it was observed by the learned Single

Judge that whatever may be the dispute between the partners, the

bank must approach the proper adjudicatory forum for an

appropriate order of injunction on the petitioner and cannot freeze

the accounts of the petitioner on the strength of a solitary

complaint without the order of an adjudicatory forum.

11. In both the said decisions cited before us, a judgment of a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rina Habiba vs. the

The Bank of India & Amp; Ors., (FMA 74 of 2020) was relied on.

12. It is thus contended that the original order passed by the writ

court was perfectly justified. In any event, the proforma respondent

no.8-VTL, which is the 100% share holder of the appellant no.1-

Company, offered to give indemnity for defreezing the account,

which was accepted by the learned Single Judge, thereby providing

necessary safeguards in respect of any future claim which may be

made.

13. Secondly, it is argued that the premise of the freezing of the

account by the bank was apparently the marking of the appellant

no.2-Company as “pending management dispute” with the

7

Registrar of Companies (ROC). However, the ROC, by a subsequent

letter to the appellant no.2 dated July 15, 2021, informed the

appellant no.2 that the marking of „management dispute‟ as per

the direction of the “APL Committee” was reversed and the

appellant no.2-Company was unmarked from having management

dispute and was advised to take steps to change the necessary e-

forms „pending due to management dispute‟ by raising GIF by the

ROC to be changed to original status as „approved‟. The said

communication was in apparent compliance of a letter by the

Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) dated July 9, 2021, directing

such demarking.

14. By a letter dated July 22, 2021, such demarking was intimated to

the Axis Bank, despite which the Axis Bank mulled over the

matter, in apparent collusion with the respondent nos. 5 to 7, and

filed an unnecessary clarificatory application before this Court.

15. It is next contended that respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein were

erstwhile Directors of the appellant no.2-Company but were

subsequently removed/not reappointed as Directors along with one

Vinay Sureka. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 and the said Vinay

Sureka lodged the complaint with the ROC, asking not give effect

to the change of directors, prompting the ROC to mark the

company with „management dispute‟. The appellants argue that

the decision of removal of respondent no.5 and non-reappointment

of respondent no.6 as well as Vinay Surekha was by virtue of valid

resolutions passed in Extraordinary General Meetings (EOGMs)

8

and/or Annual General Meetings (AGMs) of the appellant no.2-

Company.

16. Thus, the request made to the bank by the appellant no.2 for

change of signatories in place of respondent no.5 to 7, in view of

their removal/non re-appointment as Directors of the company,

was perfectly justified and validated by a resolution in an EOGM

dated May 10, 2021.

17. It is argued that the Bank did not have any locus standi to seek

any further clarification in view of its client, the appellant no.2,

having instructed it to alter the signatories, that too in view of a

valid Board resolution. In any event, it is contended that

respondent nos. 5 to 7 had or have no locus standi at the relevant

juncture to raise any dispute whatsoever. Even if such dispute is

raised, the same cannot be a relevant consideration for the Bank

in suo motu freezing the account without any valid order of the

court.

18. Learned senior counsel for the appellant next submits that the

removal/non-reappointment of respondent no.5 to 6 was

challenged under Section 241 and 242 of the Company‟s Act,

2013, by labelling such action as oppression and mismanagement,

before the National Company L aw Tribunal (NCLT). The said

challenge having been dismissed, an appeal has been preferred

against the dismissal before the National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal (NCLAT), which is no w pending. In the pending

proceeding, the Axis Bank also took out an app lication for

9

intervention, which is now pending as well. It is argued that the

Axis Bank cannot have any plausible interest in intervening in a

dispute purely regarding the internal affairs and disputes of the

appellant no.2-Company sought to be raised by the APL

(Administrator Pendente Lite), since the company is only a

customer of the bank and the bank cannot have any direct interest

in the proceedings.

19. Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that the Axis Bank

is acting in tandem and in collusion with respondent nos. 5 to 7

and their stooges, who were appointed as Directors in the first

place by virtue of direction of the APL, appointed initially in a

testamentary proceeding with regard to the last Will and testament

of Late Priyambada Devi Birla (PDB), a matriarch of the Birla

Family.

20. It is submitted that in a challenge before the Division Bench of this

Court, the said Bench categorically observed that the estate of PDB

could not be extended to different other companies where Late PDB

did not have a direct controlling interest by virtue of her share

holding and/or the direct incidents of such share holding,

including the appellant no.2-Company. Hence, there was no

irregularity in the Directors, appointed by the APL arbitrarily, to be

removed subsequently. In any event, it is argued that any

management dispute in respect of the company, even if there

initially was, does not remain any further in view of the unmarking

10

of „management dispute‟ in respect of the appellant no.2 by the

ROC on the directives of the MCA.

21. That apart, the Axis Bank cannot have any business freezing the

account suo motu even if there is any such management dispute in

the company. The Axis Bank, it is argued, is hand in glove with the

Birla Family, at whose behest it is alleged that the APL is

functioning.

22. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further argues

that the Ombudsman‟s order turning down the challenge of the

appellants was bad in law, since the pendency of an intervention

application by the Bank in a comple tely unrelated proceeding

regarding oppression and mismanagement could not come within

the ambit of a “similar dispute” with that relating to the freezing of

the accounts of appellant no.2.

23. In any event, respondent nos. 5 to 7 have never challenged their

removal/non-reappointment in their individual capacities or in

their capacity as Directors but it is only the APL which had filed

the challenge before the NCLAT. Not being Directors currently in

the company, respondent nos. 5 to 7 did not have any locus standi

to be impleaded in the dispute raised in the writ petition.

24. While controverting such arguments, learned senior counsel for

the Bank submits that the Bank is completely neutral and froze

the account only in view of the conflicting communications made

on behalf of the appellant no.2-Company by different sets of

persons. It is submitted that since a management dispute of the

11

Company itself was cited, it would be imprudent and precarious

for the bank to act on the instruction on either of the sets of

parties, who wrote contradictory letters regarding the operation of

the account. Whereas a request was made from one faction of the

Company to freeze the accounts, the other instructed the bank to

continue operation of the same upon changing the authorized

signatories. In view of such contradictory set of instructions, the

Bank was in a quandary as to whether to permit or not to permit

the operation of the accounts. Thus, solely in the interest of its

customer, that is, the appellant no.2-Compnay itself, the accounts

were frozen.

25. It is contended by the Bank that the Bank if ready to abide by any

direction passed by any competent forum, including this Court,

and does not have any personal stake in the matter. The

clarificatory application was made since there was a request for

change of signatories and a consequential mismatch with the

original signatories who have acted all along in such capacity on

the instructions of the previous customer/company itself.

26. It is argued that the marking the company as having „management

dispute‟ was not the sole basis of freezing the account, but the

contradictory and conflicting instructions from different sets of

management of the company as well as the fact that in the ROC

records, no alteration in the name of Director or change of office,

as claimed by the appellants, was reflected.

12

27. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 7

argues that in view of the pendency of the matter before the

NCLAT, there is obviously a management dispute and specific

allegation of oppression and mismanagement due to removal of the

said respondents as Directors of the Company. Thus, if the

account is permitted to be operated at this juncture, it would be

contrary to the interest of the company itself. Before the dispute is

resolved, it is submitted that the subject accounts of the company

ought to remain frozen. Furthermore, the appellants sought a

change in signatories, which would give untrammelled access to

them in respect of the subject accounts.

28. It is next argued that being the complainants at whose behest the

accounts were frozen, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 were necessary

parties to the writ petition and them having not been impleaded in

the writ petition, the original order passed in the writ petition was

bad in law and ought to be recalled. The learned Single Judge was,

thus, justified in directing the respondent nos. 5 to 7/recall

applicants to be added as parties to the writ petition. As a

necessary corollary, since the recall application as well as the

clarificatory application is pending, the learned Single Judge

rightly suspended the operation of the order under recall as well as

the connected contempt application.

29. It is lastly submitted by the said respondents that the

Ombudsman was justified in turning down the challe nge on the

ground of pendency of a similar issue before the NCLAT. In any

13

event, having failed before the Ombudsman, the freezing of the

bank accounts could not again be challenged before the writ court.

Thus, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 7 prays

for the appeal to be dismissed.

30. Upon a consideration of the arguments of the parties, we find that

the testamentary proceeding in respect of the last Will and

Testament of late PDB, a matriarch of the Birla Family, has spread

its shadow over a plethora of litigation, including the present one.

The respondent nos. 5 to 7 were apparently appointed as Directors

of the appellant no.2-Company at the behest of the APL appointed

by the testamentary court.

31. From the freeze letter of the bank dated June 9, 2021, which was

challenged before the writ court, it is evident that two different

letters are cited by the bank as the justification for such freezing of

the accounts of the appellant no.2-Company. The first letter dated

10

th

May 2021, issued on the letterhead of the appellant no.2-

Company, was admittedly issued by the present appellants.

However, the second letter dated May 18, 2021 cited by the Bank

was issued not on the letter-head of the appellant no.2 but that of

VTL, a 100% shareholder of the appellant no.2-Company, that is,

August Agents Limited.

32. In the said letter, the Bank also referred to an inter-management

dispute which was taken note of by the MCA, requesting to settle

the matter amicably or get an order/interim order from a court or

a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction till such dispute was settled.

14

The Bank also noted in the letter of freezing that the ROC website,

as on June 8, 2021, continued to reflect the registered office

address and names of Directors as per the extract attached

thereto. The Bank raised a question as to whether the resolutions

taken by the Company were held in compliance in the provisions

of applicable law, including Section 100, 115 and 169 and 173 of

the Company Act, 2013, and the Rules thereunder, seeking copies

of all extracts.

33. Surprisingly, the freeze letter was addressed not to the appellant

no.2-Company, that is, August Agents Limited but to the Manager,

Finance and Accounts, M.P Birla Group. Although the letter

reached the appellants, the loyalty of the Bank, as the banker, lay

not with a nebulous entity called the “M.P. Birla Group” but

specifically to its customer August Agents Limited (appellant no.2)

and, in all propriety, the letter should have been addressed to the

appellant no.2-Company.

34. Secondly, as wrongly mentioned in the body of the freeze letter

dated June 9, 2021, the second letter, which was the premise of

the freeze order, was not issued on the letter-head of appellant

no.2. Although the said letter was referred to as “ The August

Letter 2” by the Bank, from the subject quoted in the said letter, it

is evident that the second letter dated May 18, 2021 was issued on

the letter-head of VTL, with a merely a copy to the appellant no.2-

Company, the latter being the customer of the Bank.

15

35. Thus, it is unclear as to what prompted the Bank to raise a dispute

on the basis of third-party entity, that is, VTL, as opposed to a

letter issued by the customer company itself.

36. That apart, we find from the relevant annexure to the stay

application in the present appeal that by a communication dated

July 15, 2021, the ROC itself wrote to the appellant no. 2 -

Company intimating it about the decision of the MCA dated July 9,

2021, as intimated to the ROC, for unmarking of the management

dispute in respect of the appellant no.2-Company, also directing all

consequential steps to be taken to remove such marking as

management dispute in respect of the appellant no.2 -Company.

Pursuant to the said letter of the ROC dated July 15, 2021, the

appellant no.2 wrote again to the Axis Bank on July 22, 2021,

which communication is also annexed to the present stay

application, thereby narrating the entire factual situation as on

that day, including the subsequent communication of the ROC

informing about the demarking of „manageme nt dispute‟ and

reiterating its request to give effect to the change of signatories and

defreeze the accounts. However, the Bank, going beyond its charter

as the banker to the appellant no.2-company, still persisted in

retaining the freeze of the accounts.

37. The Bank also sought to intervene in the internal disputes of the

company by making an application for impleading itself in the

proceeding under Section 241 and 242 of the Company‟s Act,

2013. Apart from the Bank prima facie having no locus standi to

16

intervene in the internal affairs of the Company, in the capacity

merely of a banker of the Company, we find it baseless on the part

of the Axis Bank to rely on the communication by a third-party,

that is VTL, by referring to it as a letter by the appellant no.2-

Company, while contravening the specific instruction issued on the

letter-head of the appellant no.2 -Company itself, citing the

resolutions taken in EOGMs of the Company itself , to have a

change in signatories. It was the incumbent duty of the Axis Bank,

as per banking norms, to act on the instructions of the appellant

no.2-Company itself, which is the holder of the subject accounts,

irrespective of any internal management dispute which might be

there in the company.

38. Moreover, since the marking of the company with “management

dispute” has since been unmarked by th e ROC on the specific

directive of the MCA, there cannot be any further fetter in

operation of the account. Even otherwise, the marking by the ROC

as management dispute operates in an entirely different sphere of

Company Law, having nothing to do with the banking business of

the Axis Bank vis-à-vis appellant no.2-Company. At the worst,

such marking of management dispute might have an impact of

statutory compliances on the part of the company insofar as the

ROC is concerned, which is entirely within the domain of Company

Law and has nothing to do with the transactions of the company

with its banker, the Axis Bank.

17

39. Also, the challenge to the removal of respondent nos. 5 to 7 as

Directors before the NCLT, in the garb of oppression and

mismanagement disputes under Section 241 and 242 of the

Companies Act, 2013, was dismissed by the NCLT. Although an

appeal is pending before the NCLAT against such dismissal, in the

absence of any stay order passed by the Appellate Authority, the

order of the NCLT is still operative and binding on the parties.

Thus, as on date, the removal/non-reappointment of respondent

nos. 5 to 7 as Directors of the appellant no.2-Company subsists,

thereby denuding them of any locus standi to raise any objection

with regard to the affairs of the appellant no.2-company or the

operation of its bank accounts.

40. It is none of the business of the Axis Bank, in its capacity as the

Banker of the appellant no. 1-company, to peep into the internal

affairs of the company, in the teeth of the unmarking of the

appellant no.2 as a „management dispute‟ and in view of the NCLT

order, which subsists as on date, whereby the respondent nos. 5 to

7 do not have any locus standi as any functionary of the appellant

no.2 to raise any objection to the operation of its account.

41. The third important aspect of the matter which disturbs this Court

is that the second letter dated May 18, 2021, cited by the Bank in

its freezure communication dated June 9, 2021, was issued on the

letter-head of VTL, and not the appellant no.2-Company and, as

such, the same could not be a relevant factor for denying to carry

out the specific instructions given in the letter-head of the

18

appellant no.2-Company itself, which was the first letter dated May

10, 2021 cited in self-same communication. Most importantly, VTL

itself, which is the 100% shareholding company of the appellant

no.2 and in total control of the appellant no.2-Company, has itself

given an indemnity with respect to the defreezing of the accounts

before the writ court, on the premise of which the writ court

directed the freezing to be reversed. Thus, not only has sufficient

safeguards been incorporated in the writ court‟s original order by

directing the VTL to grant indemnity, it is evident that VTL itself,

on whose letter the bank froze the account in the first place, has

taken a stand supporting the defreezing of the account. Thus, no

impediment can now remain in the path of the bank to defreeze the

account pursuant to the order of the writ court, since the very

premise of its freezing has now been erased by VTL itself coming

up in support of the defreezing.

42. Accordingly, the clarification sought by the bank is prima facie a

moonshine, in an unwarranted bid to thwart the operation of the

accounts and, in the process, to put a spanner in the wheels of

implementing the original order of the writ court now sought to be

recalled, in an apparent act of camaraderie with the respondent

nos. 5 to 7, in tandem with the APL Committee appointed initially

by the Testamentary Court.

43. Furthermore, the respondent nos. 5 to 7, having been denuded of

the locus standi to interfere in the affairs of the Company by virtue

of the NCLT order, does not have any right to be impleaded in the

19

writ petition at all. Even otherwise, in view of the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the testamentary matter, the estate of

Late PDB has been restricted only to her direct shareholding and

the incidents thereof, thereby taking the appellant no.2, where she

did not have any significant shareholding, outside the ambit of her

estate, to be administered by the APL. Hence, the challenge by the

APL against the removal of respondent nos.5 to 7 is a cause of

action espoused by the APL itself and not on behalf o f the

respondent nos. 5 to 7 in their capacity as individual Directors of

the Company. The respondent nos. 5 to 7 cannot piggyback on the

APL challenge to claim locus, in view of themselves having not

taken out any challenge to their removal or non-reappointment

before any competent forum at any point of time.

44. The other ground on which the said respondents seek to be

impleaded in the writ petition as necessary parties is that on their

complaint, the freezure of the accounts-in-question took place.

However, such plea is ex-facie a sham, since the bank itself, in its

communication dated June 9, 2021 cited a letter dated May 18,

2021 on the letter-head of VTL, a 100% shareholding company of

the appellant no.2 August Agents Limited, as the trigger for

freezing the accounts. We do not find a whisper within the four

corners of the freeze letter as to the respondent nos.5 to 7 having

raised any allegation, objection or complaint to instigate such

freezure. Hence, it is only VTL on whose contra letter dated May

18, 2021 the freezer was undertaken by the Bank, only which

20

could come up in support of such freezure. On the contrary, VTL

now supports the appellants in defreezing the accounts; not

stopping there, VTL stands as the indemnifier by undertaking to

indemnify the defreezure before the writ court. Th us, the

respondent nos. 5 to 7, prima facie, do not have any locus standi

whatsoever to be impleaded in the original writ petition and/or to

file a recall application of the original order passed by the writ

court directing defreezing of the accounts, nor does the bank any

subsisting justification not to comply with the parent order of the

writ court and defreeze the accounts-in-dispute.

45. Even otherwise, the remedy of the respondent nos. 5 to 7, if any,

could at best lie by way of an appeal before the Division Bench

against the parent order passed by the writ court, with leave to

prefer such appeal, having not been parties to the original writ

petition. The law does not contemplate an application for recall

simpliciter in a disposed-of writ petition, particularly since the

dismissal was on the merits of the case. No case of review under

Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out in

the recall application, nor has any other justification been given to

recall the order passed in a disposed-of writ petition. Hence, prima

facie, the recall application, as well as the clarification application

by the Bank, are not maintainable in the eye of law.

46. Thus, we do not find any prima facie case having been made out

for the order impugned before this Court being passed. The learned

Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated June 19,

21

2025, merely recorded that after hearing the submissions of the

parties it appeared to the court that the matter was required to be

heard, unfortunately, without recording any reason or adverting to

any prima facie case made out for so observing. Thus, putting the

parent order dated April 9, 2025 in suspension by directing the

parties not to act upon the same for the time being, as well as

keeping the contempt application in abeyance consequentially, are

not substantiated by any reasoning and, accordingly, cannot be

sustained.

47. With utmost respect, another irregularity which strikes the eye in

the impugned order dated June 19, 202 5 is that the recall

applicants/respondent nos. 5 to 7 herein have been directed to be

formally added as party-respondents to the writ petition, which

relief could only have been granted once the recall application was

allowed and the order disposing of the writ petition reopened, if at

all. There is no scope of impleading or adding parties to a

disposed-of writ petition, since the writ court is no longer in seisin

of the matter after disposing of the same. Thus, the addition of

parties in a dead writ petition is contrary to the basic tenets of

jurisprudence.

48. Hence, in effect, one of the final reliefs sought in the recall

application itself has been granted at the premature stage by

adding respondent nos. 5 to 7 as parties to the main writ petition,

despite the recall application itself having been postponed for

22

hearing later. On such count as well, we find the impugned order

not being sustainable in law.

49. Accordingly, MAT No. 989 of 2025, MAT No. 990 of 2025 and MAT

No. 991 of 2025 are allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the

impugned order dated June 19, 2025 passed in connection with

CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 arising out of WPA No. 6088 of

2025 and in respect of CPAN No.933 of 2025.

50. The learned Single Judge is requested to take up all pending

applications together as per the convenience of the said Bench, by

disposing of the recall application of the respondent nos. 5 to 7

and the clarificatory application filed by the Axis Bank first and

thereafter to decide on the contempt application, subject to the

outcome of the recall application.

51. Consequentially, the connected stay applications, bearing CAN 1 of

2025 filed in connection with all the aforesaid appeals stands

disposed of.

52. We hasten to add that this court has not decided on merits any of

the issues involved in the applications pending before the writ

court and all the above observations are tentative in nature, only

conclusive so far as the disposal of the present appeals and

connected applications is concerned, and the findings and

observations of this court shall not, in any manner, prejudice the

rights and contentions of any of the parties in the pending

applications before the learned Single Judge.

53. There will be no order as to costs.

23

54. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the

parties upon compliance of due formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

I agree.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)