Disposed¶16

Rakesh Jolly v. Idbi Bank

Delhi HC16 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/2842/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rakesh Jolly v. IDBI Bank; W.P.(C) 2842/2026 & CM APPL. 13786/2026; High Court of Delhi; Jasmeet Singh, J.; decided 16.04.2026; Article 226 writ petition; petitioner declared fraud vide bank communications dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024; prayer to consider new Forensic Audit Report dated 16.04.2025 before action; communications stayed until bank considers petitioner's case on the new forensic audit report; fresh cause of action reserved; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the respondent bank's communications dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024 (declaring the petitioner a fraud) until the bank considers the petitioner's case based on the new forensic audit report dated 16.04.2025; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue legal remedies if a fresh cause of action arises. ¶16

Rakesh Jolly Vs Idbi Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent bank (IDBI Bank) should be directed to consider the new Forensic Audit Report dated 16.04.2025 before contemplating any action or proceedings against the petitioner. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Since the respondent bank stated it is examining the petitioner's status in view of the new forensic audit report dated 16.04.2025 and will take further action based on its analysis, the grievances of the petitioner stand satisfied.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Until the respondent bank considers the petitioner's case based on the new forensic audit report dated 16.04.2025, the bank's communications dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024 (declaring the petitioner a fraud) shall remain stayed.

¶14

Key takeaways

If, after the respondent bank considers the forensic audit report, any fresh cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to avail of his legal rights in accordance with law.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.; order dated 16.04.2026) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Rakesh Jolly against IDI Bank's fraud declaration. The petitioner, declared a fraud vide the respondent bank's communications dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024, had sought that the bank consider a new Forensic Audit Report dated 16.04.2025 before contemplating any action on those communications. As the respondent's counsel accepted notice and stated that the bank was examining the petitioner's status in view of the new forensic audit report and would act on its analysis, the court held the petitioner's grievances stood satisfied and directed that, until the respondent considers the petitioner's case based on the said forensic audit report, the communications dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024 shall remain stayed. The petitioner was left at liberty to avail of his legal rights in accordance with law should any fresh cause of action arise after the bank's consideration.

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2842/2026 & CM APPL. 13786/2026

¶4

RAKESH JOLLY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arun Maittri, Ms Radhika Chandrashekhar, Mr Parth Gautam, Mr Eish Kesarwani, Advs. versus IDBI BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Mr. Kumar Arnav Singh Deo & Mr. Naman, Advs.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶6

O R D E R % 16.04.2026

¶7

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶8

“(i) issue Appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to the Respondent/OBI Bank to consider the new Forensic Audit Report dated 16.04.2025 before contemplating any action/proceedings on the basis of Orders/Communication dated 29.10.2024 & 30.11.2024, issued by Respondent Bank.”

¶9

For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice.

¶10

Mr. Barua, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and states that in view of the new forensic audit report dated 16.04.2025, the respondent is examining the status of the petitioner and will take further

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:03:26

¶13

action based on the analysis of the said new forensic audit report.

¶14

In this view of the matter, the grievances of the petitioner stands satisfied. However, since the petitioner has been declared a fraud vide communication dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024 issued by the respondent bank and the respondent bank is considering the new forensic audit report dated 16.04.2025, therefore, till the respondent considers the case of the petitioner based on the said forensic audit report, the communication dated 29.10.2024 and 30.11.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶15

Needless to add, if after considering the said forensic audit report, any fresh cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to avail of his legal rights in accordance with law.

¶16

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶17

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶18

APRIL 16, 2026/NG

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:03:26

Rakesh Jolly v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Jolly v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Raju Lamdade and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Telecommunications Consultants India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Seth Umashankar Agarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chamma Kushwaha Vs Government NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kunwer Sachdev Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Lvirgo Pharma Vs Commissioner of Cgst & Anr.

Shivani Priyam & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Vs Raju

Onkar Raju Lamdade and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Deepanshu Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Nuneselhou Shurhiu Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Ms Tekram Enterprises Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shlok Bhardwaj Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sarah Arshad Vs National Testing Agency