- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43030 WP No. 23624 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23624 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: NITESH RESIDENCY HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, LEVEL 4, B WING, THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL, 99 RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025, REP. HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER LEGAL, MR SWAMY K B. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND & SRI SIDDHARTH SRIKANTH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 4TH FLOOR, RBI BYCULLA OFFICE BUILDING, OPP. MUMBAI CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION, BYCULLA, MUMBAI 400 008. 2. CENTRAL FRAUD MONITORING CELL, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 10/3/8, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, P B 5467, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. J C FLOWERS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 12TH FLOOR, CROMPTON GREAVES HOUSE, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJESH VELLAKATT, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI VIGNESH S SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43030 WP No. 23624 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF R-3 IN CLASSIFYING THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT AS 'FRAUD' IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MASTER DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FROM TIME TO TIME ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Declare that the action of respondent no.3 in classifying the petitioner's account as 'fraud' is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Master Directions issued by the respondent no. 1 from time to time; b. Direct the respondent no-1 to initiate appropriate action against respondent no-3 for violating the Master Directions issued by the respondent no.1 from time to time in not de-classifying the petitioner's account as 'fraud' and direct respondent-3 accordingly; c. Consequently, direct the respondent no.3 to de- classify the petitioner's account as 'fraud'; d. To pass such other order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding the costs, in the interest of justice." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43030 WP No. 23624 of 2024 2. A memo dated 27.10.2025 has been filed, signed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, which reads as under: “MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER The Petitioner herein respectfully submits as under: 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking, inter alia to direct the respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.3 for violating the Master Directions issued by the Respondent No.1 from time to time in not de-classifying the petitioner's account as 'fraud' and direct Respondent No.3 accordingly. 2. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the Petitioner and the contesting Respondent i.e. Respondent No.3, have entered into terms of settlement and have agreed upon terms of repayment, in full and final settlement of all alleged dues payable by the Petitioner. Copy of the letter dated 04.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 is produced herewith as Document No. 1. 3. The said settlement has also been reported to this Hon'ble Court in Commercial Appeal No.509/2022 and connected matters, and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.10.2025, closed the said proceedings, in terms of the settlement. Hence, it is submitted that, in light of the settlement reached between the parties, the present writ petition does not survive for consideration, and as such, the same may be closed in light of the settlement so reached. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take this memo on record, and dispose of the writ petition as infructuous, in the interest of the justice and equity”. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43030 WP No. 23624 of 2024 3. Accepting the said memo and submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the petition is dismissed as settled out of Court. 4. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same are disposed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17