Dismissed

Maninder Singh v. Bank of India

Delhi HC10 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8592/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi set aside the Respondent Bank's order classifying the Petitioner as a fraud. The Court held that the order failed to address the objections raised in the Petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It directed the Bank to reconsider the reply and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.06.2026 is set aside; the Respondent Bank is directed to consider the Petitioner's reply dated 20.12.2025 and pass a speaking order.

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8592/2026, CM APPL. 40246/2026 MANINDER SINGH .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Manohar Malik, Adv. versus BANK OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Adv. for respondent bank standing counsel for Bank of India

¶5

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

¶6

% 10.07.2026

¶7

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer(s):-

¶8

“a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the Respondent Bank classifying the status of Petitioner as fraud/ defaulter, as the same is non-est, illegal and arbitrary; and/or,”

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the Non-Executive Director of M/s Religare Finvest Limited (“ RFL ”) for a period from 26.10.2016 to 14.11.2017. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was neither involved in dayto-day affairs or management or operational decision of the above said company. 3. RFL was declared as non-performing assets (“ NPA ”) on 31.10.2019 and proceedings were initiated for declaring the company as a fraud and have been so declared.

¶10

The respondent obtained a forensic report from M/s Kirtane & Pandit LLP, which according to the petitioner does not establish petitioner’s

¶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 17/07/2026 at 11:49:47

¶13

involvement in the fraud committed by the company.

¶14

The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.12.2025 to the petitioner with regard to suspected fraudulent transactions in the account of RFL and based the show cause notice on the report of the forensic audit.

¶15

The petitioner duly submitted a detailed reply dated 20.12.2025, wherein he denied and raised detailed objections. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the same are important and read as under:-

¶16

Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2026, wherein the operative portion reads as under:-

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 17/07/2026 at 11:49:47

¶19

“6. The competent authority has felt that the Borrower/Noticees has to be given a chance to make their submissions in the interest of natural justice. Consequent to which a Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2025 (SCN) was issued to you, herein seeking your written submission on the findings/observations of the Forensic Audit Report/Internal Investigation Report. The SCN Was Served to the Noticee detailing therein the observations/findings of the Forensic Audit Report/Internal Investigation Report. In response to the SCN, You have made written submissions vide your letter/s dated 20.12.2025.

¶20

7. Pursuant to the receipt of written submission, given by you submission is received within 21 days of issuance of SCN, the Fraud Monitoring Group (FMG) of the Bank has carefully examined the Forensic Audit Report/Internal Investigation Report, the written submission given by you and facts on record. The FMG have come to the following conclusion based on the above:

¶21

a) Continuation of Fraud against erstwhile directors of the company.

¶22

8. The above indicates clear diversion/siphoning of funds and utilizing the funds for purposes other than for which it was granted thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to the Company with the intention to defraud the Bank causing loss of public money. The committee also finds that you were the director, of the Company at the time when the transactions had taken place and cannot be without your consent and connivance. Further, you have not been able to prove that the transactions have taken place without your knowledge or consent. ”

¶23

Hence, the present petition.

¶24

Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel for the respondent, states that the impugned order considered the objections of the petitioner and only thereafter

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 17/07/2026 at 11:49:47

¶27

has passed the speaking order. Hence, no interference is required.

¶28

I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 11. A perusal of the paragraphs of the impugned order dated 08.06.2026, as reproduced above, shows that the respondent has declared the petitioner as fraud and even though has mentioned receipt of reply of show cause notice, the objections raised by the petitioner have neither been considered nor deliberated in the impugned order dated 08.06.2026.

¶29

I am of the view that declaration of a party/ entity as a fraud is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for commercial entities/individuals and the same might result in commercial death of the petitioner. The order declaring the person as a fraud has to be meaningful and must deal with the objections raised by a party. 13. The impugned order dated 08.06.2026, as reproduced above, to my mind is cryptic and does not deal with any of the grounds raised in the reply of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.06.2026 is set aside and the respondent will consider the reply dated 20.12.2025 of the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

¶30

With these directions, the present petition is disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.

¶31

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶32

JULY 10, 2026/JK

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 17/07/2026 at 11:49:47

Maninder Singh v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maninder Singh v. Bank of India

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

Murari Lal & Ors. Vs Punjab Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Bhagwan Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Smt. Deepika Bajaj Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Devmala Sharma Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.

White Rose Cghs Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Desh Raj Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Amarjeet Singh Sethi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mithlesh Solanki Vs MCD & Ors.

Master Vivaan Gupta through His Mother Neetu Gupta Vs Kulachi Hansraj Model School and Anr.

Sow Gandharibai Pratishthan Jr College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sunita Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Master Reyaansh Vs Pm Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors.

Govind Saini and Ors. Vs National Testing Agency and Ors.