OD-5 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/426/2026 BAIBHAB KUMAR ROY AND ORS. VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO Date : 21st September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hashnuhana Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Neelina Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Nikita Baid, Adv. …. for the Petitioner Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Adv. … for respondent nos. 2-3. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the impugned order dated 26th August, 2026 wherein the Axis Bank Limited, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, classified the petitioner as fraud. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank has issued show-cause notice on 31st July, 2026. After receipt of the show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted a reply to the bank on 20th August, 2026 requesting the bank for a further period of 30 days to enable the petitioner to submit detailed reply on the ground that the petitioner company has gone into liquidation in pursuance of the order passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Branch and the records and materials required for preparing an appropriate response requires some time to collate and examination. 2 3. The bank without considering the request for extension of time to submit reply has passed the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the bank submitted that the bank has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 31st July, 2026, which was received by the petitioner on the very same day by an e- mail. On 3rd August, 2026, the petitioner has received the show cause notice by the post and in the show cause notice the bank has specifically fixed the time framed on 21 days for submitting the reply but only on 20th August, 2026, the petitioner has submitted the reply requesting the bank for extension of time to file the reply. He submits that the petitioner has got sufficient time to submit reply but the petitioner fail to submit reply and accordingly, the bank has passed the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel for the bank further submits that though the petitioner has mentioned that the petitioner company was under liquidation by the order of the learned Tribunal but the petitioner has not given any details of the document which the petitioner intends to rely upon. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the forensic audit report contains all the documents but the petitioner failed to submit the reply and only to delay the proceeding has requested for extension of time. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 8. Perused the materials on record. 3 9. By an order of the Learned Tribunal the petitioner company was under liquidation. The petitioner intends to file the detailed reply after getting the documents but the bank failed to extend the time and passed the impugned order. Though the petitioner has received the notice on 31st July, 2026 but has not submitted the reply within 21 days. This Court finds that within 21 days the petitioner has requested the bank for extension of time but the Bank has not considered the request. 10. It is not denied by the bank that the petitioner company was under the liquidation by the order of the Tribunal. Admittedly, once the company is under liquidation the petitioner cannot have the documents which the petitioner wants to rely upon. The petitioner has to obtain all the documents from the official liquidator, if any, appointed by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner should be given one opportunity to file a detailed reply. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and quashed with the liberty to the petitioner to file detailed reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from date and if any reply is received by the bank within two weeks, the bank shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that if petitioner failed to submit reply within two weeks, the bank is at liberty to pass appropriate order. 12. Writ petition is disposed of. (KRISHNA RAO, J.) gb