IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao W.P.A. No. 11390 of 2024 Hemant Kanoria & Anr.

Vs.

Karnataka Bank Limited Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar Mr. Soumalya Ganguli Mr. Naman Chowdhury Mr. Shubrojyoti Mookherjee Mr. Samriddha Sen ....For the petitioners.

Mr. Dhruv Dewan Mr. Deepanjan Dutta Roy Ms. Arushi Chandra Mr. Udbhav Nanda Ms. Sanjana Jha Ms. Rashi Sharma Ms. Aditi Rathore ….For the respondent.

Hearing Concluded On : 14.01.2026 Judgment on : 10.02.2026 Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have challenged the show cause notices dated 19th March, 2024 wherein the respondent has directed the petitioners to show cause as to why the accounts of the petitioners shall not be declared as “fraud” under the Reserve Bank of India Master Directions.

2. Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee along with Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocates representing the petitioners submit that the respondent failed to serve the documents on the basis of which the impugned notices have been issued. He further submits that no Forensic Audit Report is served upon the petitioners before issuance of show cause notices.

3. Mr. Banerjee submits that the show cause notices were issued without supply of Forensic Audit Report or its documents though the respondent has issued show cause notices on the basis of Forensic Audit Report and its documents, thus it is not possible for the petitioners to give proper reply to the respondent to the impugned show cause notices.

4. Mr. Banerjee submits that in the absence of every document on the basis of which the assertions are contained in the show cause notices are being made available to the petitioners and reasonable time is given to the petitioners to consider the same, no meaningful or effective response can be given to the impugned show cause notices in any manner whatsoever.

5. Mr. Banerjee submits that the show cause notices have been issued in violation of natural justice as the petitioners have not been given an opportunity to explain the conclusion of the Forensic Audit Report.

6. Mr. Banerjee submits that in the absence of each and every documents on the basis of which the allegations have been made against the petitioners in the show cause notices are being made available to the petitioners and a reasonable time is given to the petitioners, the petitioners will not be in a position to give appropriate reply to the show cause notices.

7. Mr. Banerjee in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgement in the case of Hemant Kanoria Vs. Bank of India passed in WPA No. 28329 of 2023 dated 2nd February, 2024 and submits that in the said case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that a show cause notice is to be issued, enumerating the exact offences alleged against the borrower/ Director. If any, Forensic Audit Report or other document forms on the basis of the show case notice, the same is to be served along with the show cause notice.

8. Mr. Banerjee further relied upon the judgment in the case of Milind Patel Vs. Union Bank of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 745 and submits that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that it is now well settled that due compliance with principles of natural justice must essentially entail compliance with obligation to provide access to the material on which the allegations are based.

9. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Learned Advocate representing the respondent submits that show cause notices were issued on 19th March, 2024 but the petitioners have not filed any show cause reply.

10. Mr. Dewan has relied upon the judgment in the case of Hemant Kanoria (supra) and submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court also held that the balance has to be struck between the limit up to which technicalities should be adhered to on the one hand and speed in reporting is ensured on the other hand. He submits that the time is the essence of the ent