Allowed

Pankaj Tandon v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Delhi HC5 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/774/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the order declaring him fraud without considering his latest representation. High Court set aside the order for violating principles of natural justice, stating all representations must be considered before a reasoned order is passed.

What did the court decide?

The order declaring the petitioner as fraud was set aside as being violative of principles of natural justice.

Pankaj Tandon Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 774/2026 & CM APPL. 3748/2026 PANKAJ TANDON

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv with Ms Shruti Kanodia, Ms Ishita Jain, Mr Ankit Bhandari, Ms Sejal Gupta, Mr Ritwik Saha, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC with Mr. Siddhant Law Officer

¶8

Mr. Ramesh Babu, Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Tanya Chowdhary, Ms. Jagriti Bharti Advocates for R1

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 05.02.2026

¶10

This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing/ setting aside of the order dated 17.12.2025.

¶11

The facts are that the petitioner was a professional director of Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Private Limited. The issue whether the petitioner was key managerial personnel (KMP) is contentious and is not being adjudicated in the present petition.

¶12

The petitioner has been declared fraud, based on the impugned order dated 17.12.2025.

¶13

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, challenges the same on the ground that the impugned order is cryptic and merely illusory, and that

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶16

none of the defences raised by the petitioner have been considered by the Fraud Examination Committee.

¶17

The findings against the petitioner in the impugned order are as under:

¶18

“ Gist of Reply dated 23.11.2024 of Pankaj Tandon:

¶19

Show cause notice has not been sent to him or received by him.

¶20

He is not a director of ICI

¶21

He has not been director of the company since June 15, 2017 i.e. long before account became NPA. He was appointed as a professional director and was never appointed as a managing director, whole time director, promotor or shareholder of the company.

¶22

You have never provided me with the documents relied upon in the forensic audit report. It is further pertinent to note that admittedly the books of accounts for the period of FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 were unavailable and hence the forensic auditor has come to certain conclusions based on incomplete and incorrect documentation.

¶23

Further, having resigned from the company almost 7 years ago, he is having no records of the company to enable him to verify the statement by PNB.

¶24

The averments made in the show cause notice are also vague and not supported by any evidence, nor does it reveal any specific wrongdoing on his part.

¶25

There were other directors of the company at the time of

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶28

account becoming NPA. SCN has been issued to some of them.

¶29

During personal hearing of willful defaulter, identification committee has accepted his submission having limited role in the company.

¶30

Sought forensic audit report and some other documents.

¶31

He will need 4 weeks' time.

¶32

Furthermore, in his previous correspondence dated 29.03.2024 addressed to bank, he had provided his correspondence detail requesting bank to send him all the relevant past, present and future documents.

¶33

Views of the committee: Sh. Pankaj Tandon stated that he is not a director in M/s lsolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Private Limited. He further stated that incorrect conclusions drawn by the identification Committee against him as he was never given a chance to submit his representation to the notices issued by the bank as these letters have never been received by him. On July 7, 2015 he was appointed as a professional director of the company till his resignation on June 15, 2017. He also stated that during his tenure as the company's professional director he neither possessed any signing authority on any loan transaction nor was he authorized through a power of attorney to act on behalf of the company. Sh. Pankaj Tandon has not provided pointwise reply on the factors of fraud. Fraud has been perceived on the basis of Forensic Audit Report and the same

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶36

has already been provided to him. Sh. Pankaj Tandon stated that he is not a director in M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Private Limited. As per DIR-11, his appointment in the company was as a professional director.

¶37

It has been observed that as per Annual Return filed on 30.09.2016 in the Form No. MGT- 7, Sh. Pankaj Tandon DIN No 07232021 have been mentioned non-independent director and key managerial personnel of the borrower company. Hence, statement of Sh. Pankaj Tandon in the representation is incorrect.

¶38

It is further stated by the representer that he has not been director of the company since June 15, 2017 i.e. long before the company was declared as NPA by PNB on August 31, 2017. This statement also does not provide any relief to him from the liabilities. Sh. Pankaj Tandon has been director in the company and he is responsible for the actions of the company. He was given opportunity to clarify his position and present justification on factors of fraud (by providing forensic audit report), but he could not do so.”

¶39

Based on above findings, the petitioner has been declared fraud.

¶40

Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2, states that the petitioner was duly given personal hearing and the representations were considered and thereafter, a speaking and well-reasoned order has been passed.

¶41

In the present case, 2 replies have been given by the petitioner.

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶44

One, dated 23.11.2024 (prior to the receiving of F orensic Audit Report) and seco n d dated 20.10.2025, (after receivi n g the Forensic Audit Report).

¶45

The repr e sentation of the petitioner on 20.10.2 0 25 is relevant and the entire representation is reproduced hereunder:

¶46

This is a digitally signed order. 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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶53

This is a digitally signed order.

¶54

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶55

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶56

This is a digitally signed order.

¶57

This is a digitally signed order.

¶58

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶59

This is a digitally signed order.

¶60

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶61

This is a digitally signed order.

¶62

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶63

This is a digitally signed order.

¶64

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶65

This is a digitally signed order.

¶66

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶67

A perusa l of the impugned order reproduced a b ove clearly shows that even tho u gh the respondent recognised that a representation dated 20.10.20 2 5 has been received; the same has n ot been considered or adverted t o.

¶68

None of t h e grounds mentioned in the represent a tion dated 20.10.2025, namely t hat the petitioner was only a non - executive/professional director w ith no control over finances, no signin g authority, and no role in the t r ansactions under scrutiny have be e n considered, in the impugne d order.

¶69

Addition a lly, the order declaring the petitioner a s a wilful defaulter has been sta y ed by this Court in W.P. (C) 6329/2 0 25 on 13.05.2025, the said orde r is still continuing.

¶70

Despite t h e same, the declaration of wilful def a ulter of the petitioner has also b een made one of the grounds for classi f ying the petitioner as a “fraud”.

¶71

The pri n ciples of natural justice requires t hat each and every represent a tion of the petitioner made prior to th e date of passing the impugne d order should have been considered, d ue application of mind

¶72

This is a digitally signed order.

¶73

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

¶74

should have been accorded and thereafter, reasoned and detailed order should have been passed. The same has not been so done.

¶75

Declaring the person as a fraud has serious consequences on the credibility of the petitioners, their working, obtaining loans and other banking transactions. The principles of natural justice must be followed in a meaningful and obvious manner.

¶76

For the said reasons, the order cannot be sustained and is set aside as being violative of principles of natural justice.

¶77

However, the above observations do not prevent the respondents from taking any actions which is in accordance with law.

¶78

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any.

¶79

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶80

FEBRUARY 5, 2026 / (MS)

¶81

This is a digitally signed order.

¶82

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 16/02/2026 at 13:14:35

Pankaj Tandon v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Tandon v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijender Singh. Vs Globe Detective Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Kumari Pratiksha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narendra Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Mahender Singh & Anr. Vs the Dy. Secretary Land and Building Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Poonam Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gourav Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Prerna Gupta Vs Registrar General of Delhi High Court

Kumari Pratiksha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Late Chhabuati Dahake College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Rathod Nidhi Kiran Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs DDA

Vijay Gupta Vs D.D.A

C.L. Chauhan Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.