- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18883 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THIASHOLA PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 2/239, NEEDARI, THAISHOLA POST, THE NILGIRIS-643 230, TAMILNADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMANA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 2. TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED REGISTERED CORPORATE OFFICE, (FORMERLY: CREDIT INFORMATION BUREAU (INDIA) LIMITED, ONE WORLD CENTRE, TOWER 2A, 19TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 MUMBAI-400 013, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 3. BANK OF BARODA OVERSEAS CORPORATE BANKING BRANCH, SHRUTHA COMPLEX, NO. 19, PRIMROSE ROAD, OFF M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.PINAZ MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RECTIFY THE DOUBTFUL-1 STATUS WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS STANDARD. B) QUASH THE EMAIL LETTER DATED 19/06/2025 AT ANNEXURE-L AS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PRESCRIBED GUIDELINES OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND AGAINST THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN WP NO.11343/2023 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AT ANNX-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who had availed loan from the third respondent - Bank, after two writ proceedings has cleared the loan in terms of the affidavit filed in the earlier writ proceedings but the dispute has subsisted because the third respondent has classified the petitioner's loan account as "Sub-Standard" for the period between the disposal of the second petition and the closure of the loan. The question for disposal is considered in the light of this context and the other material circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner has called in question the Communication dated 03.01.2023 addressed by the third respondent in W.P.No.495/2023. The third respondent's Communication dated 03.01.2023 is about the possible classification of the petitioner's loan account as a "Non-Performing Asset" [NPA]. This - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 Court has disposed of the petition on 17.01.2023 based on the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner's representative stating, amongst others, that the loan account would be closed. Insofar as the classification of the petitioner's loan account as an NPA, this Court has observed that the third respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner has not closed the loan but has filed the next petition in W.P.No.11343/2023 calling in question an E-mail addressed by the third respondent. This Court, on 02.06.2023 has granted interim order stipulating that the petitioner's loan account shall not be branded a NPA. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner's account continued to be as classified as a "Sub- Standard" until the disposal of the petition on 13.02.2025. This Court has disposed of the writ petition permitting the Bank to proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner has thereafter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 repaid the loan and the account stands closed on 29.05.2025. The controversy is about the status of the petitioner's account between date of disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No.11343/2023 and the date upon which the petitioner has closed the account. The petitioner's account was classified as "Doubtful-1" but after the interim orders of this Court in the present proceedings, the status of the petitioner's loan account during this period is classified as "Sub- Standard". 4. Mr. K. S. Venkataramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene to direct the third respondent to classify the petitioner's loan account for the afore period as "Standard" and not either as "Doubtful-1" or "Sub-Standard". When queried on the prejudice, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner employs more than 3,000 workers and this classification - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 would impede the petitioner from availing cash-credit facility which becomes important for its functioning. 5. Mr. Nagaraj Damodar, the learned counsel for the third respondent - Bank, submits that because the loan remained unpaid, despite an affidavit in this regard, not just after the disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No.495/2023, but also after the disposal of the next petition in W.P.No.11343/2023 and that therefore the account has been rightly classified as "Sub-Standard" shifting it from the category of being "Doubtful-1". 6. This Court must, instead of deciding on what the status must be because the loan is cleared, should dispose of the petition observing that the status of the petitioner's loan account between 13.02.2025 and 29.05.2025 should not be an impediment to the petitioner to avail any facility in the future as extension of any such facility must be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5600 WP No.18883/2025 not just based on this particular fact but a host of other circumstances. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB