Monoranjan Roy Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The appeal arose from a judgment dated 02.07.2026 dismissing the appellant’s writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 04.07.2025 issued by Bank of Baroda directing the appellant to explain why the loan account should not be classified and reported as fraud under the RBI Guidelines. The writ petition also sought setting aside of the bank’s decision dated 18.09.2025 to report the account as fraud to the Reserve Bank of India. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had already replied to the show cause notice and therefore the challenge to the notice was not maintainable.
The appellant contended that the show cause notice was founded entirely on a forensic audit report which itself contained express disclaimers and was not conclusive. It was submitted that the report had been prepared on limited information received from the lenders and other available sources and that the auditor had expressly stated that the conclusions were based on evidence available on the date of the report and were subject to further findings upon production of complete financial records and cooperation by the borrower. The appellant further submitted that the company had been undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) since 2018 and had gone into liquidation in 2019. Consequently, the directors and erstwhile management had lost control over the company’s affairs, while the books of account and records were under the control of the liquidator and had also been seized by the Directorate of Economic Offences (DEO). It was argued that the bank ought to have approached the liquidator or the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the necessary records instead of relying upon the incomplete audit report.
