Jaipur Jewels Global Limited vs the Reserve Bank of India — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jaipur Jewels Global Limited vs the Reserve Bank of India — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 5th January 2024 set aside; Respondent No.2 Bank to grant the Petitioners a hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice; Petitioners to raise any grievance as to non-supply of documents before the Bank within two weeks, file written representations within 3 weeks of receipt of documents, and avail a hearing within one week thereafter; all rights and contentions of the parties kept open; writ petition disposed of on these terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 5th January 2024 should be set aside and the Petitioners granted a fresh hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice by Respondent No.2 Bank. +1 more

Court's answer

Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all concerned, the impugned order dated 5th January 2024 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of on the terms set out in the order.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2, while contending that a hearing had already been provided to the Petitioners, is to grant the Petitioners a hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice, with a view to resolving the Petition.

Key takeaways

Any grievance of the Petitioners that certain documents were not provided by Respondent No.2 Bank is to be raised before that Bank within two weeks from the date of the order, and the Bank shall deal with it in accordance with law.ratio¶22
The Petitioners are to file written representations within 3 weeks of receipt of documents and thereafter avail an opportunity of hearing before Respondent No.2 Bank within one week thereafter.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ.), 12 January 2026 — Writ Petition No.2265 of 2024, Jaipur Jewels Global Limited and Ors. v. The Reserve Bank of India and Anr.: Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all concerned, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 5th January 2024 and disposed of the writ petition on terms. Respondent No.2 Bank, while contending that a hearing had already been provided to the Petitioners, agreed to grant them a hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Any Petitioner grievance that certain documents had not been provided by the Bank was to be raised before the Bank within two weeks of the order, to be dealt with in accordance with law; the Petitioners were to file written representations within 3 weeks of receipt of documents and avail a hearing within one week thereafter. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court also corrected its earlier order dated 8th January 2026 to record that only counsel for Respondent No.2 (and not Respondent Nos.1 and 2) had given instructions.

45-WP-2265-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2024

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SATISH SANGAR RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.01.12 19:23:48 +0530

Jaipur Jewels Global Limited and Ors. ...Petitioners

V/s.

The Reserve Bank of India and Anr. ...Respondents

Mr.Ankit Lohia i/b. Mr.Jash Dalia, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.Prasad Shenoy a/w Ms.Aditi Phatak and Ms.Ishita Desai i/b. BLA & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1 – RBI.

Mr.Aditya Pimple a/w Ms.Vaishali Bhilare and Mr.Somesh Talla, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 12^th JANUARY 2026

P. C. :-

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The order dated 8^th January 2026 passed in the present petition inadvertently records in the first line that “The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2, on instructions…” The same is to be modified and recorded as “The learned counsel for Respondent No.2, on instructions…”. Corrections accordingly.

Without prejudice to rights and contentions of all concerned, the following order is passed.

(a) Whilst it is the contention of the Respondent No.2 Bank that a hearing has already been provided to the Petitioner,

Satish Sangar

1/2

45-WP-2265-2024.doc

however, with a view to resolve the present Petition, the Respondent No.2 is willing to grant a hearing to Petitioners in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

(b) It is the contention of the Petitioners that certain documents have not been provided by the Respondent No.2 Bank. Any such grievance will be raised by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 Bank within two weeks from the date of this order, who shall deal with it in accordance with law.

(c) The Petitioners will file its written representations within 3 weeks of receipt of documents and thereafter avail an opportunity of hearing before the Respondent No.2 Bank within one week thereafter.

(d) All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

(e) The impugned order dated 5^th January 2024 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Satish Sangar

2/2