$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8931/2026 & CM APPL. 41879/2026, CM APPL. 41881/2026 RAJEEV GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Yash Gaiha, Adv versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Premtosh K Mishra SPP, Mr Anubhav Upadhyay Adv Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 23.07.2026 CM APPL. 41880/2026 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 8931/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “A. Issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or directions/order quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 26.05.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1 and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the Impugned Order thereto; B. Issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or directions/order quashing and setting aside the Impugned This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 Show Cause Notice dated 30.04.2024 (mentioned as 30.04.2023 due to typographical error) issued by Respondent No. 1; C. Issue appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition or directions/order to stay the operation of Impugned Order and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the Impugned Order thereto; D. Issue appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition to Respondent No. 1 & 4 to not initiate/pursue any coercive measures, including filing/pursuing criminal complaint against the Petitioner in relation to and/or pursuant to the Impugned Order....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an ex-director of RCI Industries and Technology Ltd. and the RCI Industries and Technology Ltd. was declared Non-performing asset (“NPA”) and thereafter, was admitted into insolvency. The respondent No.1 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner dated 30.04.2024 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be declared as fraud on 7 factors. 3. The petitioner filed a writ petition i.e., W.P. (C) 2669/2026 challenging the Show Cause Notice, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2026, wherein in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 it was held as under:- “11. In the present case, the challenge in the writ petition is to SCNs. The law in this regard is clear that ordinarily writ petition challenging the show cause notices must not be entertained because all the grounds raised in the SCNs are This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 available to the petitioner to raise in their response to the SCNs and thus, they are yet to be adjudicated upon. 12. The petitioner has been granted liberty to appear before the respondent banks, give detailed representation and the respondent banks are required to pass a detailed speaking order. Additionally, in other connected writ petitions, the banks have already been directed to supply documents to the petitioner and it is only thereafter a detailed personal hearing has been permitted. The petitioner has also already participated in the 2 personal hearing of SBI and PNB....” 4. In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026 the petitioner sent letters to the respondent No.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 which declares the petitioner as fraud. 5. Hence, the present petition. 6. I am of the view that the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind and does not even consider the averments made by the petitioner. The impugned order records factor of fraud 3 and 4, which reads as under:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 7. Thereafter, the impugned order records the contentions of the petitioner, which read as under:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 8. The findings given The findings given in the impugned order reads as under: xxxxxx in the impugned order reads as under:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 9. A perusal of the impugned order, as reproduced above, shows that the petitioner time and again has sought valuation report dated 15.05.2023 to highlight to the adjudicating authority that the property near around market value. However, the valuation report has not been supplied but instead a valuation report petition) for a land at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh is used to value the property of the petitioner at Nalag no reasons have been given as to why the property at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh are identified as having the same valuation. A perusal of the impugned order, as reproduced above, shows that the petitioner time and again has sought valuation report dated 15.05.2023 to highlight to the adjudicating authority that the property near around market value. However, the valuation report has not been supplied but instead a valuation report (which is annexed with the for a land at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh is used to value the property of the petitioner at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. Additionally, no reasons have been given as to why the property at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh are identified as having the same valuation. A perusal of the impugned order, as reproduced above, shows that the petitioner time and again has sought valuation report dated 15.05.2023 to highlight to the adjudicating authority that the property was sold at the near around market value. However, the valuation report has not been (which is annexed with the for a land at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh is used to value the arh, Himachal Pradesh. Additionally, no reasons have been given as to why the property at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh are identified as having the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05 10. Further, a valuation report of plot No. 84 is relied upon to value the property at plot No. 108 at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh of the petitioner. As per the petition, it is clear that plot No. 108 is a barren land, whereas the plot No. 84 is a fully constructed factory. The valuation of plot Nos. 84 and 85 (which is annexed with the petition) shows that the value of the properties is taken with the fair value of land and building. In the present case, admittedly, when the property was sold in the year 2019, plot No. 108 was a barren land. 11. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order does not take into consideration any of the above and is passed in a cryptic and mechanical manner. The declaration of fraud as serious consequences and affects the credibility of the person and could lead to a commercial death of an individual. 12. Consequently, the petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby set aside. 13. The Court has not interdicted CBI in proceeding in accordance with law. Hence, the prayer no. ‘D’ against CBI is hereby dismissed. 14. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, along with pending applications, if any. 15. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1 handed over in the Court today is taken on record. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 23, 2026 / (MS) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:34:05