1 WP-6213-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6213 OF 2025 [Sagar S/o Dattatraya Meghe and another Vs. Reserve Bank of India and others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shantanu Khedkar, Counsel for Petitioners. Shri S.N. Kumar, Counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri Aditya Mehta, Counsel for Respondent No.2 (Though VC). Shri P.G. Mewar, Counsel for Respondent No.3. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. D ATE : 28 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 1. A communication dated 24th May, 2024 issued by the HDFC Bank to the petitioners through e-mail seeking clarification regarding November 2016 of ‘Maharashtra Vidyut Nigam Pvt. Ltd.’ loan of Rs.2300 Crores, which was reported by ICICI Bank Ltd., prompted the petitioners to make certain correspondence with HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank and RBI for clarification. The clarification sought for the reason that the petitioners were no way connected with the above-referred loan of Rs.2300 Crores. None of the Banks responded to the satisfaction of the petitioners. When the petitioners realized that they have been declared defaulters relating to a loan account not connected with them and that too without following the principles of natural justice, the present petition came to be filed. 2. In reply, the ICICI Bank has stated in clear terms that there is no declaration as alleged by the petitioners by any of the above-referred Banks declaring petitioners as defaulters. It is pointed out that on 2026:BHC-NAG:12878-DB 2 WP-6213-2025.odt revelation of a fraud committed by Gupta Coal Indian Pvt. Ltd., as per the master circular of the Reserve Bank of India, Fraud Monitoring Return was submitted. It is mandatory to submit the complete information as sought in the format of Return provided by the Reserve Bank of India. In the said Return, there are various columns, including the information about the perpetrator of fraud, the associate concerns of such perpetrator and Directors/Partners of such associate concerns, etc. It is further made clear that the name of the petitioner No.1 is nowhere mentioned in such a Return, whereas the name of the petitioner No.2 is mentioned in the column relating to Directors/Partners of the associate concerns. It is pointed out that ‘Maharashtra Vidyut Nigam Pvt. Ltd.’ is one of the associate concerns of perpetrator, Gupta Coal India Pvt. Ltd. and the name of petitioner No.2 appears as Director of ‘Maharashtra Vidyut Nigam Pvt. Ltd.’, in the Return submitted to the Reserve Bank of India. 3. It is pointed out that mentioning of the name in the Return as a Director of the concern associate of the perpetrator does not mean that such associate concern or its Directors are defaulters. Thus, it is submitted that it is misconceived that the petitioners are declared or considered as the defaulters. 4. In the circumstances, if there is any entry treating the petitioner No.2 as a defaulter for the reason that he was a Director in the month of November 2016 of ‘Maharashtra Vidyut Nigam Pvt. Ltd.’, which is one of 3 WP-6213-2025.odt the associate concerns of Gupta Coal India Pvt. Ltd., the name of the petitioner No.2 shall be removed for want of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of with liberty to file afresh if such occasion arises. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) LANJEWAR