Disposed

Goli Finance Limited v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/7040/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NBFC's registration was cancelled by RBI for not achieving the Rs. 2 crore Net Owned Fund requirement; the petitioner claimed it achieved NoF before cancellation. Following similar precedents, the Division Bench set aside the RBI and Appellate Authority orders and remanded for fresh consideration on extant regulations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Goli Finance Limited Vs Union of India & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~36

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 15^th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 22^nd January, 2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 7040/2020 & CM APPL. 24001/2020

¶5

GOLI FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohan Rai, Adv.

¶6

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Babu, Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Tanya Chowdhary, Ms. Nisha Sharma, Mr. Rohan Srivastava, Advs. for RBI (9971671294)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶9

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The challenge in the present writ petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 11^th May, 2020 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter “ RBI Act ”). Vide the impugned order, the RBI’s order dated 5th February, 2019 cancelling the Petitioner’s Certificate of Registration as a Non-Banking Financial Company (hereinafter “ NBFC ”) was upheld.

¶12

The case of the Petitioner is that the RBI had issued a notification dated 20^th April, 1999 by which the “ Net Owned Fund ” (hereinafter “ NoF ”) of an NBFC, which wanted to commence its business on or after 20^th April, 1999, was increased from Rs. 25 lakh to Rs.2 crores. However, the NBFCs which were already registered with RBI or whose applications seeking the

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:2 2.01.2026 12:20:04

¶15

W.P.(C) 7040/2020 Page 1 of 6

¶16

Certificate of Registration were filed prior to 20^th April, 1999, were exempted from application of the said notification.

¶17

The Petitioner was issued the Certificate of Registration by the RBI on 20th January, 2001. Thereafter, the Petitioner was converted to Category-B NBFC and a fresh Certificate of Registration was issued on 30th December, 2014. In the meantime, a revised regulatory framework came into existence on 10^th November, 2014 as per which the RBI had directed that the requirement of minimum NoF of Rs. 2 crore was made applicable to all NBFCs. Further, in view of the new regulatory framework vide notification dated 27^th March, 2015, RBI mandated all the NBFCs, including the existing NBFCs, to have the NoF of Rs. 2 crores. As per the said notification, existing NBFCs would be permitted to continue functioning subject to achieving NoF of Rs. 1 crore before 1st April, 2016 and Rs. 2 crores before 1st April, 2017.

¶18

The case of the Petitioner is that the notification dated 27th March, 2015 was published in the official gazette on 11th July, 2016 and that the Petitioner could not take steps to achieve the increased NoF due to not being timely informed of the said notification.

¶19

It is stated that on 2nd May, 2018, a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter “ SCN ”) was issued by the RBI as to why the Petitioner’s registration ought not be cancelled for not achieving the NoF of Rs. 2 crores, in terms of the revised regulatory framework and notification dated 27th March, 2017.

¶20

The Petitioner is stated to have achieved the NoF of Rs. 2 crores by 31st July, 2018. A response was also filed to the SCN on 14 January, 2019, wherein the Petitioner informed the RBI that it had achieved the NoF of Rs. 2 crore. However, on 5^th February, 2019, the Petitioner’s Certificate of Registration was cancelled by the RBI. The Appellate Authority was then

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:2 2.01.2026 12:20:04

¶23

W.P.(C) 7040/2020 Page 2 of 6

¶24

approached by the Petitioner challenging the said order of the RBI, which dismissed the said appeal vide the impugned order dated 11^th May, 2020.

¶25

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon orders passed in similar matters by coordinate Benches as also ld. Single Judges of this Court which hold that since the NoF was achieved prior to the issuance of SCN or prior to passing of the order of cancellation by the RBI, the Petitioner deserves to be heard and the matters deserve to be remanded back for fresh consideration by the RBI.

¶26

Mr. Ramesh Babu, ld. Counsel for the RBI, submits that considering the fact that Petitioner had achieved the NoF requirement of Rs. 2 crores prior to passing of the cancellation order, the matter may be remanded for fresh adjudication. However, the said consideration should be on the basis of the extant regulations and not on the basis of any other regulations.

¶27

The Court has heard ld. Counsel for the Parties and has perused the order dated 29^th May, 2015 passed by the ld. Division Bench in W.P.(C) 12742/2019 titled M/s. Shabros Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. Reserve Bank Of India And Anr. In the said order, the Court had under similar circumstances, where the NoF had been achieved prior to the issuance of the SCN, remanded the matter in the following terms:

¶28

“9. Concededly, in similar facts, this court had in number of petitions set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order on the basis of the averments made in the petition.

¶29

10. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that he has no objection if similar directions are issued in the present case as well.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:2 2.01.2026 12:20:04

¶32

W.P.(C) 7040/2020 Page 3 of 6

¶33

11. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the RBI as well as the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the AA. We remand the matter to the RBI to consider the present petition as a representation and pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks from date. The petitioner is also at liberty to file a further representation within a period of two weeks from date.”

¶34

The order relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the RBI dated 11^th September, 2025 passed by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 10471/2020 titled Social Leasing India Limited vs. Union Of India And Anr. , wherein the following order has been passed:

¶35

“12. Having gone through the aforesaid decisions and the judgments of RBG Leasing and Credit Limited (supra) and M/S Alpine Finlease LTD. (supra) and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶36

(i) The order passed by respondent no.2/RBI on 26.10.2018 and also the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside.

¶37

(ii) The matter stands remitted back to respondent no.2/RBI for consideration afresh.

¶38

(iii) Respondent no.2/RBI shall take a decision on the basis of material produced by petitioner before this Court within eight weeks after the additional documents are filed by petitioner within two weeks. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to place on record any further additional material before respondent no.2/RBI within two weeks.

¶39

(iv) If petitioner files a detailed representation before

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:2 2.01.2026 12:20:04

¶42

W.P.(C) 7040/2020 Page 4 of 6

¶43

respondent no.2/RBI explaining all circumstances and places on record the relevant material to justify the same, let the same be considered by respondent no.2/RBI afresh, in accordance with law, including the extant regulations without being prejudiced by the stand taken in the instant writ petition”

¶44

In the opinion of the Court, the Petitioner’s case is similar to the cases referred above, and thus, considering that the Petitioner had achieved the NoF requirement prior to order of cancellation by the RBI, the matter is a fit one to be remanded for fresh adjudication by the RBI.

¶45

However, the fact that the Petitioner had achieved the NoF of Rs. 2 crores would have to be verified by the concerned Authorities on production of proper documentation etc.

¶46

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the following directions are issued:

¶47

(i) The matter is remanded to the RBI for fresh consideration including the aspect as to whether the NoF was achieved prior to 5^th February, 2019 or not. For the said purpose, if any documentation is to be filed by the Petitioner, it is permitted to do so within six weeks.

¶48

(ii) If any written submission or representation is to be filed by the Petitioners giving further facts or details, the same may also be placed before the RBI by the Petitioners within six weeks.

¶49

(iii) The decision shall be taken by the RBI within six weeks after submission of the said representation/documents by the Petitioner.

¶50

(iv) The entire matter shall be considered afresh on the basis of the applicable extant regulations. Consideration shall be also afforded to the materials produced by the Petitioners and any

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:2 2.01.2026 12:20:04

¶53

W.P.(C) 7040/2020 Page 5 of 6

¶54

additional/submissions documents which may be filed.

¶55

The earlier order of cancellation dated 5^th February, 2019 as also the Appellate Authority’s impugned order dated 11^th May, 2020 are set aside and shall have no bearing as the matter would have to be considered afresh by the RBI.

¶56

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶57

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶58

MADHU JAIN JUDGE

¶59

JANUARY 15, 2026 kk/msh

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:2 2.01.2026 12:20:04

¶62

W.P.(C) 7040/2020 Page 6 of 6

Goli Finance Limited v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Goli Finance Limited v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Nord Anglia Education Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 2(2) (2), New Delhi

Ruchika Tanwar Vs the Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

M/S Kanti Prashad Mittal Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways through Govt. of Assam, PWD

Anmol Enterprises Vs Superintendent, Range -90, Division Palam, Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate and Ors.

India Power Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar

Dharamvir Singh & Ors. Vs the Nav Jagriti Cghs Ltd. through Its President / Secretary

Mohd Naiem Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Subrata Roy & Anr. Vs Nav Sansad Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Anr.

Rahul Bajaj Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Meag Singh Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors.

Krishna Capfin Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.