Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18486 (RAJ)

SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL, S/O LATE SRI H.P. AGARWAL v. UNION BANK OF INDIA

CW/13469/2023 · 2026-02-05

Anuroop Singhi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:5483] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13469/2023 1. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Sri H.p. Agarwal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 105, Amba Bari, Jaipur - 302023 2. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Sh. H.p. Agarwal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 401, Okay Plus Empress, B-4, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur - 302016 3. Smt. Prabha Agarwal, W/o Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o - 401, Okay Plus Empress, B-4, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur - 302016. 4. Smt. Vishakha Agarwal, W/o Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 105, Amba Bari, Jaipur - 302023 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Bank Of India, Through Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Iind Floor, Orbit Mall, Ajmer Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur 302006 2. Rajvanshi And Associates, Chartered Accountants, H-15, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur -302001. 3. M/s Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd., Through Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Director, Registered Office Atg-750, Road No.9F2, V.k.i. Area, Jaipur - 302013 Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Agarwal Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma for Mr. Ram Naresh Vijay Mr. Neeraj Batra with Ms. Sneha Kaushal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 05/02/2026 The limited controversy involved in the matter is that as per the petitioners, the Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021 [2026:RJ-JP:5483] (2 of 4) [CW-13469/2023] prepared by respondent No.2-M/s Rajvanshi and Associates, Chartered Accountants, on being appointed by respondent No.1- Union Bank of India, will have a material bearing on the further proceedings to be carried out by the respondent No.1-Bank against them with respect to the proposed classification of their bank account as fraudulent, hence, prayer has been sought to direct the respondents to provide a copy of the said Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021 so as to enable them to file reply to the show cause notice dated 05.08.2023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Bank submits that the Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021 was only a draft Forensic Audit Report and they are not in possession of the same as on date. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that they have no objection in providing a copy of the said Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021 to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the parties are not disputing the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of SBI & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 wherein it has been held in unequivocal terms that the lender banks are required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the borrower before classifying their accounts as fraud. The relevant extract of the above judgment reads as under:- “98. The conclusions are summarised below: 98.1. No opportunity of being heard is required before an FIR is lodged and registered. 98.2. Classification of an account as fraud not only results in reporting the crime to the investigating agencies, but also has other penal and civil consequences against the borrowers. 98.3. Debarring the borrowers from accessing [2026:RJ-JP:5483] (3 of 4) [CW-13469/2023] institutional finance under Clause 8.12.1 of the Master Directions on Frauds results in serious civil consequences for the borrower. 98.4. Such a debarment under Clause 8.12.1 of the Master Directions on Frauds is akin to blacklisting the borrowers for being untrustworthy and unworthy of credit by banks. This Court has consistently held that an opportunity of hearing ought to be provided before a person is blacklisted. 98.5. The application of audi alteram partem cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds. In view of the time-frame contemplated under the Master Directions on Frauds as well as the nature of the procedure adopted, it is reasonably practicable for the lender banks to provide an opportunity of a hearing to the borrowers before classifying their account as fraud. 98.6. The principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/JLF before their account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions on Frauds. In addition, the decision classifying the borrower's account as fraudulent must be made by a reasoned order. 98.7. Since the Master Directions on Frauds do not expressly provide an opportunity of hearing to the borrowers before classifying their account as fraud, audi alteram partem has to be read into the provisions of the directions c to save them from the vice of arbitrariness.” Taking note of the facts obtained and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Rajesh Agarwal (supra), once the respondent No.2 has agreed to provide copy of the Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021 to the petitioners, nothing further survives in the matter to be adjudicated and the grievance raised by the petitioners stands duly redressed. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to provide a copy of the Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021 to the petitioners as agreed within a period of 15 days from today. It is further clarified that upon the receipt of the copy of the Forensic Audit Report dated 18.02.2021, the petitioners would file [2026:RJ-JP:5483] (4 of 4) [CW-13469/2023] their reply to the show cause notice dated 05.08.2023 issued to them by respondent No.1-Bank within a period of 45 days thereafter. Taking note of the interim order dated 31.08.2023 passed by this Court, vide which respondents were directed to not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance to the notice dated 05.08.2023, it is further directed that in the event of any final order being passed by respondent No.1-Bank which may adversely affect the interest of the petitioners, the same would come into effect after a period of ten days from the date of service of such order upon the petitioners. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /62