$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:02^nd December, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10832/2025 AJAY NARAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adit Pujari, Ms. Mansi Sood, Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Ms. Mayuri and Ms. Khushi Gupta, Advocates.

versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ayush Srivastava, Advocates for R1/RBI.

Mr. Bharat Arora and Ms. Himangi Arora, Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CM APPLs. 44786/2025, 44787/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10832/2025 & CM APPL. 44785/2025

3. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction inter alia quashing and setting aside the Letter bearing No. EC.CO.FID(III)/954/10.03.03./W-165/98-99 dated 14.12.1998 issued by the Respondent No. 1;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that no reliance be placed on documents that create an interest of Respondent No.2 in the First Floor of the property at 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, which have been executed without any permission having been sought from Respondent No.1 under the FERA regime;

(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for any/all other consequential relief of prayers “(a)” and “(b)” above; and (d) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

4. Case of the Petitioner, as set out in the writ petition is that Respondent No.2/Shri Kanwar Raj Singh relinquished Indian citizenship and became a US citizen in 1993. Between 1996 to 1998, Petitioner took loans of approximately Rs.50 to 60 lakhs from Respondent No.2 and his wife and as security he offered 1^st and 2^nd floors of property bearing no. 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (‘Jor Bagh property’) with an understanding between the parties that the property will not be sold to recover the loan amount and was only to underwrite the loan taken by the Petitioner. On 30.03.1998, Petitioner signed a fresh set of documents including Agreement to Sell (‘ATS’) and Power of Attorneys (‘POAs’) in respect of 2^nd floor of the Jor Bagh property. On 30.04.1998, Petitioner returned a sum of Rs.45 lakhs as part repayment of the loans taken and since an amount of Rs.15 lakh was outstanding, Respondent No.2 withheld the original ATS, GPAs and SPAs and promised to return the documents upon repayment of the pending loan amount.

5. It is stated in the petition that on 23.06.1998, Petitioner revoked the GPAs and SPAs and after cancelling the documents informed Land & Development Office that all documents pertaining to the loan agreement stood cancelled, in light of the revocation deeds. On 09.07.1998, Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction being CS(OS) No. 1336/1998 before this Court. On 13.07.1998, Court issued summons and granted injunction restraining Respondents No.2 and 3 from dealing with, alienating or parting with the 1^st and 2^nd floors of the Jor Bagh property. On

18.08.1998, Respondent No.2 sent a letter to Respondent No.1 claiming to have purchased 2^nd floor of the subject property and submitted the ATS and GPA, both dated 30.03.1998 along with Form IPI-7 in compliance with reporting obligation under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (‘FERA’), after a delay of 51 days.

6. It is stated that Respondent No.1/Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) decided on 14.12.1998 to accept the Form IPI-7, without condoning the delay in declaring the purchase of the property and without conducting a preliminary enquiry into the validity of the documents given in support of the claim that the property was purchased. In 2000, Respondent No.2 filed a cross suit b