Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Others vs State Bank of India, Thr. Assistant General Manager (Fmd), Mumbai

¶1

57.CAW.2144.2025.odt 1/3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 2144 OF 2025 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5098 OF 2025

¶5

Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors. Vs.

¶6

State Bank of India

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶8

Mr. Devendra V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. C.S. Dhore, Advocate for the Applicants/Petitioners.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND

¶10

RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2025.

¶12

Heard Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

The petitioners have filed the present application seeking amendment to the writ petition by raising certain additional grounds.

¶14

Since the notices are not yet issued to the respondent, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the aforesaid application is allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioners to carry out the amendment within two days.

¶16

The application is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 5098/2025

¶18

Heard Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for

¶19

the petitioners.

¶20

57.CAW.2144.2025.odt 2/3

¶21

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking challenge to the impugned proposed classification decision taken by the respondent – State Bank of India, treating the loan account of M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited as ‘fraud’, based on the Forensic Audit Report dated 23^rd July 2018, prepared by M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP. The petitioners also seek challenge to the said Forensic Audit Report dated 23^rd July 2018.

¶22

The contention of the petitioners is that the Forensic Audit Report, based on which the aforesaid impugned actions were initiated, was submitted by M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP on 23^rd July 2018. The aforesaid report is at record page No.115. Mr. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, has drawn our attention to record page No.128, which contains the chapter concerning the limitations to scope of work, as well as the disclaimers mentioned therein.

¶23

A perusal of the aforesaid disclaimers reveals that the exercise of conducting the Forensic Audit of the Company, and the report submitted pursuant thereto, was intended for very restrictive use.

¶24

Mr. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, has also invited our attention to the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the appointment of M/s. Grant Thornton for conducting the aforesaid audit, on the ground of conflict of interest. The said objection, dated 1^st February 2015, is at record page No.385. Mr. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that after the submission of the report on 23^rd July 2018, the petitioners immediately approached the

¶25

57.CAW.2144.2025.odt 3/3

¶26

respondent – State Bank of India and submitted a detailed objection on 9^th July 2025, pointing out the grounds of challenge and requesting the Authorities not to take any adverse action against them. However, no decision was taken on the said objection, and the impugned action has been initiated against the petitioners.

¶27

In view of the above, issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 14^th November, 2025.

¶28

In addition to the usual mode, the petitioners to serve the respondent by private mode.

¶29

In the meanwhile, the respondent – State Bank of India is directed not to use the aforesaid Forensic Audit Report dated 23^rd July, 2018 against the petitioners before any other Authorities till the next date.

¶30

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶31

Vijaykumar

¶32

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2025 19:42:03

Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Others v. State Bank of India, Thr. Assistant General Manager (Fmd), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Others v. State Bank of India, Thr. Assistant General Manager (Fmd), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj S/O. Shamrao Borkar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others

Dhiraj S/O Tulshiram Chandekar Vs Mrs. Nivedita W/O Dhiraj Chandekar

Sau. Dhandevi W/O Kuldeep Waghmare vs Kuldeep S/O Rajendra Waghmare

Vedant S/O Dinesh Shinde Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Its Member Sec. and Ors.

Syed Mazhar S/O. Syed Zafar and Another vs Zilla Parishad, Akola, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, and Others

Kumari Mrunal D/O Dhiraj Bhisikar Thr. Her Father Dhiraj Vithoba Bhisikar and Ors. Vs S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, Thr. Vice Chairman and Anr.