Item 08 29.06.2026 Court. No. 12 CP/GB MAT 637 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Punjab National Bank VS Hemant Kanoria & Anr. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Deepanjan Dutta Ray, Ms. Arushi Chandra, Mr. Udbhav Nanda, Ms. Sanjana Jha, Ms. Niranjana Pandian Ms. Aditi Rathore … for the Appellant. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, Mr. Naman Chaudhury Mr. Shubrojyoti Mookherjee Mr. Samriddha Sen Mr. Deep Basak … for the Respondents. 1. The Punjab National Bank (in short PNB) is the appellant before this court. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated February 10, 2026, passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 13100 of 2024. 2. His Lordship had directed that, declaration of fraud in respect of the respondents, by PNB, in the order dated December 19, 2025, was liable to be set aside. The documents specified in the letter dated May 22, 2025, had not been supplied by the bank and no reasons had been afforded as to why those were not required to be furnished to the respondents. According to His Lordship, the documents, which were required for 2 preparation of the reply to the show cause notice, ought to have been supplied by the bank. The bank had arbitrarily passed the order, without complying with the principles of natural justice. The relevant portions of the order are quoted below :- “21. In the impugned order dated 19th December, 2025, the respondent has narrated the total reply of the petitioners. The Committee of the bank have also given their views on each issues but have not given any reasons as to why the documents which the petitioners have requested to supply, is not relevant or the said documents have been supplied. At the end of the impugned order, the Committee has given its view wherein in one part, it is recorded that the said documents are beyond the Forensic Audit Report and in other part, it is recorded that the allegation of fraud detailed in the show cause notices are based on the transaction between the SREI Entities and their customers and these records are already with the borrowers. 22. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the entire documents of the Forensic Audit Report are not supplied to the petitioners. The respondent has given personal hearing to the petitioners and in the personal hearing also the petitioners have requested the respondent for supply of documents but the same was neither supplied nor have given any justification as to why it is not necessary to supply the same to the petitioners. The respondent has offered personal hearing to the petitioners, the respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to inspect the said documents if it was not possible for the respondent to supply the voluminous documents to the petitioners. 23. Considering the above, this Court finds that the petitioners have specified the documents which the petitioners are required to give proper reply to the show cause notices but without any reasons and without considering the request of the petitioners, the respondent has passed the impugned order, thus the impugned order is set aside and quashed. 24. The respondent is directed to supply the documents as requested by the 3 petitioners in their reply dated 22nd May, 2025, within two weeks from date and if the documents are voluminous, the respondent shall allow the petitioners to inspect the documents within two weeks from date and the petitioners shall complete the inspection of the documents within a period two weeks.” 3. According to Mr. Dewan, learned advocate for the appellant, the order of His Lordship lacked specifications and reasons. The order did not reflect appreciation of the submissions made on behalf of the bank. The relevance of the documents should have been taken into consideration, before the sweeping order was passed, directing the supply of all documents which the respondents had asked for. He contended that, in the show cause notice, the bank only relied upon the Forensic Audit Reports(FARs) prepared by KPMG and Saxena & Saxena. The incidents and events indicating fraud/fraudulent transactions by the respondents etc. had been mentioned in the show cause notice and the allegations were supported by the entire set of the FARs submitted by those two auditors. Under such circumstances, the blanket order upon the bank to supply the documents as requested by the respondents, without assessing the relevance of those and without considering whether the bank was privy to those documents, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. Reliance is placed on another order passed by a learned Single Judge, with regard to the challenge of the respondents, to three show cause notices issued by three other banks. 4 5. Mr. Dewan urged that, His Lordship had specifically directed that, only those documents which were relevant for the purpose of adjudication of fraud, should be supplied to the respondents. Thus, only documents which were the basis of the show cause notice could be requested by the respondents and nothing beyond. 6. Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the letter dated May 22, 2025, is a reply to the show cause notice. However, in the self-same reply, certain documents relevant for the purpose of contesting the proceeding were requested. The respondents were not in the management of the affairs of the company since 2021. Thus, they have no access to those documents. The successful resolution applicant comprises of a consortium of banks, including the PNB, which is a share holder of the successful resolution applicant. As such, PNB should be in possession of those documents. 7. It is submitted that, paragraph 1 of the show cause notice deals with loans disbursed to EMTA Coal Limited, Nurit and SREI 8. According to Mr. Chowdhury, those loans were monitored by the officials of PNB and appraisal reports had also been prepared. In order to give a befitting reply to the allegation of fraud and diversion and siphoning off of funds, the documents available with the bank/lender and at SREI’s office in respect of those loans are relevant. According to him, once those documents are supplied or inspections thereof are given, a further 5 supplementary reply will be filed. Non-supply of the documents amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. We agree with Mr. Dewan to the extent that the learned Single Judge ought to have specified the documents which the bank should supply, upon forming an opinion with regard to their relevance, before directing the bank to supply each and every document which the respondents had asked for. 9. It is submitted that the officials of PNB had monitored the loans mentioned under paragraph 1 of the show cause notice. Thus, the bank must supply the following documents, as they appear to be relevant, in the event PNB had actually monitored the loans and had prepared appraisal reports with regard to the impugned transactions, namely, a. Copies of all appraisal reports prepared by the PNB officials in respect of the loan accounts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the SCNs and in sections 6 and 7 of the KPMG FAR. b. Copies of all minutes of meetings of the competent credit committee/special cell /relevant competent authority where the appraisal reports prepared by the PNB in respect of the loan accounts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the SCNs and in section 6 and 7of the KPMG FAR were considered and discussed. c. Copies of minutes of all meetings held in PNB by the competent authorities where all loan accounts and loan proposals of SREI Entities were placed and discussed for the purpose of sanctioning loans/enhancing limits 6 to SREI Entities between 1st April 2015 and 4th October 2021. 10. With regard to the documents mentioned hereunder, PNB will endeavour to get hold of the documents either from KPMG or Saxena or from any other bank(s) which are (is) member(s) of the consortium:- a. Copies of the Detailed Appraisal Report (DAR) and Credit Assessment Memo (CAM) prepared by the relationship managers and regional heads of the SREI Entities of the transactions which were mentioned in paragraph 1 of the SCNs and in sections 6 and 7 of the KPMG’s FAR. b. Copies of the minutes of the meeting of the credit committee dealing with the approval/modification/appraisal of the loans which were disbursed and detailed in paragraph 1 of the SCNs and in sections 6 and 7 of the KPMG FAR.” 11. We hold that, the documents which have been mentioned above are relevant for the purpose of furnishing a proper reply, disputing the allegation of fraud. If PNB had neither monitored the impugned loans nor prepared any appraisal, in that case, PNB will inform the said fact to the respondents. 12. If the documents are voluminous, then inspection shall be provided and extracts of the documents may be copied by the respondents under supervision of the bank officials. Such exercise shall be completed within four weeks from date. The 7 supplementary reply will be filed by the bank within four weeks thereafter. The respondents shall cooperate with the bank. 13. The order impugned is modified to the above extent. 14. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 15. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)