Gokul Chand Agarwal vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors

Partha Sarathi Sen, J

The Court:- The writ petitioner and the respondent no. 2 bank are represented by their respective counsels.

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no. 2 authority commanding them to recall and/or revoke and/or cancel the impugned order dated April 9, 2026.

At the time of hearing, Mr. Chaudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, at the very outset, draws attention of this Court to page nos. 259 to 269 of the instant writ petition (Annexure P-12) being a copy of the order impugned dated April 9, 2026. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that on careful perusal of the impugned order dated April 9, 2026 it would reveal that such impugned order was passed on April 9, 2026 whereas the effect of the said order was given on and from March 18, 2026. It is further submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that giving effect of the said impugned order retrospectively is beyond the RBI guidelines.

At this juncture, Mr. Chaudhury files the supplementary affidavit after serving a copy of the same to the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2 which is taken on record. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that on perusal of page no. 7 of the supplementary affidavit, as filed today, it would reveal that the date of reporting with regard to the alleged fraud of the writ petitioner was 26.03.2026 while the said order impugned was passed much thereafter i.e. on April 9, 2026. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that the action of the respondent no. 2 authority thereby placing the writ petitioner in the portal of the RBI as fraud, is prior to the passing of the reasoned order dated April 9, 2026 which shows that respondent No. 2 Bank was pre-determined to cause prejudice to the writ petitioner by passing the impugned order. In course of his submission, Mr. Chaudhury further draws attention of this Court to page no. 50 of the instant writ petition being clause 8.4.3 of the guideline dated July 15, 2024, as issued by the RBI. For better appreciation of the said clause of the said guidelines, this Court proposes to quote clause 8.4.3 of the said guidelines which is as under:-

"8.4.3 The „date of classification" is the date when due approval from the competent authority has been obtained for such classification, and the reasoned order is passed."

It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that the "Date of Classification" of the writ petitioner as a fraud ought to have been construed when due approval from the competent authority has been obtained regarding the said classification and the reasoned order is passed. It is argued by Mr. Chaudhury that on bare perusal of the impugned order dated April 9, 2026 it would nowhere reveal as to when any approval regarding such classification has been obtained from the competent authority and on the contrary, it would reveal further that the impugned order has been passed only on April 9, 2026 i.e. much before the date of reporting that is 26.03.2026 as available from the record. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that considering the action, as reflected from the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2, interim relief may be granted in terms of prayer (f) of the instant writ petition.

Per contra, Mr. Ghosh learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits before this Court that no case has been made out on behalf of the writ petitioner for obtaining interim relief. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that he has been served with the copy of the supplementary affidavit only in course of hearing. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the impugned order it would reveal that though reasoned order was passed on April 9, 2026, however its effect was given from March 18, 2026 in terms of the guidelines of the RBI, therefore, no case has been made out for obtaining interim relief as prayed for.

On careful perusal of the entire case record, this Court should considers that for effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, affidavits are required to be exchanged.

In view of such, this Court directs the respondent no. 2 authority to file his affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks; reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

Considering the prima facie case made out by the writ petitioner, also considering the fact that so far as the balance of convenience and inconvenience is concerned, the convenience lies in favour of the writ petitioner and keeping in mind that in the event the impugned notice is allowed to stand, the writ petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, this Court directs that let there be stay of the operation of the impugned order dated April 9, 2026 till last date of July 31, 2026 or until further order, whichever is earlier.

Liberty to mention.