IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao W.P.A. No. 18632 of 2025 Sunil Kanoria Vs.

DBS Bank India 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 petitioner.

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 petitioner has challenged the impugned Show Cause notice dated

24th July, 2025, issued by the DBS Bank India Limited directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the account of the petitioner shall not be declared as “fraud”.

2. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to act in accordance with its statutory obligations and responsibilities in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Master Directions.

3. It is further contended that the show cause notice issued by the respondent, is without any jurisdiction and is arbitrary, perverse and violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to furnish either the purported Forensic Audit Report or the documents relied in the show cause notice.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner do not has access to the record of the SREI Entities since October, 2021 and the petitioner is not in a position to deal with and respond to the allegations made in the show cause notice.

5. Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee along with Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocates representing the petitioner submits that the show cause notice has been issued on the basis of the Forensic Audit Report by mechanically and selectively reproducing certain parts thereof without context or basis but the respondent failed to provide a copy of Forensic Audit Report or the copies of the documents on the basis of which the Forensic Audit Reports were prepared.

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 petitioner in the show cause notice is being made available to the petitioner and a reasonable time is given to the petitioner, the petitioner will not be in a position to give appropriate reply to the show cause notice.

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 to compliance with principles of natural justice must essentially entail compliance with the 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 notice was issued on 24th July, 2025 but the petitioner has 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 entire Master Directions, which lends an extremely summary character to the process involved therein.

11. Mr. Dewan subm