06.08.2026 SL No.20 Court No.12 (gc/cp) MAT 1267 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Monoranjan Roy VS IDBI Bank Limited & Ors. Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee, Mr. Suman Majumder, Ms. Deblina Chattaraj, Ms. Poulomi Chatterjee, …for the Appellant. Ms. Soni Ojha, Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee, Mr. Pranit Biswas …for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Debabrata Das, Mr. A. Sarkar, Mr. Pratik Acharjee …for the RBI. 1. The appellant has challenged the order dated June 29, 2026 passed in WPA 6542 of 2026. Upon hearing the parties, the matter was reserved for judgment by His Lordship. His Lordship opined that, as the forensic audit report had not been disclosed, the writ petition should be dismissed. 2. The appellant had challenged a show cause notice for classification of the account of the company, of which the appellant was the erstwhile director, as fraud. 3. His Lordship held that the forensic audit report, on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued required consideration, for deciding the ‘lis’. The writ petition deserved to be dismissed as the forensic audit report has not been furnished before His Lordship. The appellant contends that IDBI 2 Bank Limited, the Bank of Baroda, the State Bank of India, the Union Bank of India and the HDFC formed a consortium and granted the loan to Pincon Spirits Limited. Monoranjan Roy, the appellant is the erstwhile director of Pincon Spirits Limited. One forensic audit was conducted. 4. The forensic audit report was set aside by His Lordship in the writ petition filed against SBI. The appellant contends that similar orders should be passed as the show cause notice issue by the IDBI Bank Limited also emanates from the same forensic audit report which has been set aside. The appellant also relies upon a decision dated July 15, 2026 passed in MAT 1091 of 2026, in which the same issue has been decided. 5. We are not inclined to decide the appeal on merits as we had done in MAT 1091 of 2026, because in the other matter, an order was passed dismissing the writ petition with certain reasons. We deemed it proper to interfere with those reasons and we passed the order in MAT 1091 of 2026. At this stage, there is no order from the writ court. The writ petition was reserved for judgment and thereafter dismissed on the ground that the forensic audit report was not before His Lordship. We find that the same appellant was successful in getting the forensic audit report set aside in the matter against the State Bank of India and it is specifically contended that, the same forensic audit report has 3 been relied upon by the IDBI Bank. Under such circumstances, the appellant shall file a copy of the writ petition in connection with which the forensic audit report was set aside, by way of a supplementary affidavit, along with the order of His Lordship in the writ proceeding. 6. The order impugned is set aside. The writ petition will be heard on merits. The validity of the show cause notice will be decided on all the points raised in the writ petition. 7. No coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant for six weeks or until further orders of the writ court, whichever is earlier. 8. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter. 9. Liberty to mention before His Lordship on an urgent basis. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2026 are disposed of. 11. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)