Dismissed

Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust (Regd) v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Aug 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1043/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for contempt against PNB for non-compliance with a court order was dismissed. The court held that the Bank could not be faulted for acting while the interpretation of conflicting court orders remained pending adjudication before the Roster Bench.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed. Bank notified; clean chit given for its action pending Roster Bench interpretation.

Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~99

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010260092026

¶4

% Date of Decision: 12^th August, 2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1043/2026 & CM APPLs. 38705/2026, 38706/2026 & 38816/2026

¶5

CH. AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD)

¶6

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Priya Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Mr. Karishmit Keswani, Ms. Ekaa Sharma, Mr. R.A. Iyer, Mr. Suraj Pratap and Mr. Kunal Kohli, Advocates. Mob: 9310810018 Email: [email protected]

¶7

versus

¶8

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Mr. Akhil Anand, Ms. Vishrutyi Sahni, Mr. Sahir Seth, Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocates for R-4 Mob: 9650405280 Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate for PNB Mob: 9811688204

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶11

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶12

The present petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent-Punjab National Bank (“PNB”) for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 29^th May, 2026, passed by this Court in I.A. 14253/2026 in CS(OS) 303/2026.

¶13

The order dated 29^th May, 2026, reads as under:

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

“ I.A. 14253/2026 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by D-1 and D-7) & I.A. 13372/2026 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by plaintiff) in CS(OS) 303/2026.

¶17

1. List on 09.07.2026.

¶18

2. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the banks will comply with the Minutes of Meetings of Governing Body dated 20th and 22nd December, 2025 (Page Nos. 87 to 90) of the documents of the plaintiff in CS(OS) 303/2026.

¶19

3. Interim orders, if any, to continue.”

¶20

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶21

Reading of the aforesaid order dated 29^th May, 2026, clearly shows that there is a direction by the Roster Bench in the suit proceedings that the respondent-PNB will comply with the Minutes of Meeting (“MoM”) of the Governing Body dated 20^th December, 2025 and 22^nd December, 2025.

¶22

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the MoM of the Governing Body dated 20^th December, 2025 and 22^nd December, 2025, relevant portion of which, reads as under:

¶23

“xxx xxx xxx

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

xxx xxx xxx”

¶27

On the basis of the aforesaid MoM, it is the case of the petitioner that mandate was given to the respondent-PNB, as under:

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

already a Know Your Customer (“KYC”) form filed before the PNB, the mandate to the respondent-PNB was very clear in regard to the authorised signatories as mentioned in the KYC form.

¶32

She draws the attention of this Court to serial no. 8 in the KYC form, which is reproduced as under:

¶33

“xxx xxx xxx

¶34

xxx xxx xxx”

¶35

Thus, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid MoM, there is a very clear mandate to the respondent-PNB, to the effect that the signatures on the cheques would be of any of the two members from Group A, along with one member from Group B, as mentioned in the Board Resolution dated 22^nd December, 2025.

¶36

Thus, she submits that the order dated 29^th May, 2026, is very categorical to the effect that the PNB had to comply with the MoM of the Governing Body dated 20^th December, 2025, and 22^nd December, 2025, and the mandate thereto.

¶37

Per contra , it is the case on behalf of respondent no. 4 that the E-mail dated 1^st June, 2026, was written by him for withholding the encashment of the cheques and any other banking activities, on the basis of order of this Court dated 29^th May, 2026.

¶38

The said E-mail reads as under:

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶42

Thus, it is submitted that there was a categorical direction by the Court vide order dated 29^th May, 2026, that only the MoM of the Governing

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶44

Page 5 of 8

¶45

Body dated 20^th December, 2025, and 22^nd December, 2025, had to be followed by the respondent-PNB, which are very clear to the effect that the cheques had to be signed by three authorised representatives, i.e., Sh. Hemant Batra, Sh. Jai Batra, and Sh. Sushil Kumar Batra.

¶46

This Court notes that the order dated 29^th May, 2026, is being interpreted by both the parties in a divergent and conflicted manner. 14. The case of the petitioner is that vide the said Court order, the respondent-PNB had to carry out the mandate given to them as per the MoM of the Governing Body dated 20^th December, 2025, and 22^nd May, 2025. 15. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent no. 4-Mr. Jai Batra that the mandate as given in the said MoM, does not make any reference to the requirement of signatures by any authorised members, whose names have been recorded in either Group A or Group B. 16. This Court is informed that the applications with regard to the injunction as well as the interpretation of the order dated 29^th May, 2026, is pending adjudication before the Roster Bench. 17. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-PNB, in receipt of letters from both the sides, cannot be faulted for its action. 18. This Court takes note of the fact that while the actual interpretation of the order dated 29^th May, 2026, and the resultant mandate of the respondentPNB is still pending adjudication before the Roster Bench, no culpability can be attributed to the respondent-PNB, in the manner in which it acted.

¶47

This Court further notes the fact that while the said MoM between the parties stipulated that the requisite authorised signatures would be of three representatives, namely, Sh. Hemant Batra, Sh. Jai Batra, and Sh. Sushil Kumar Batra, however, the KYC form does not mention any such term.

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Page 6 of 8

¶50

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶51

Since there is a dispute between the parties as regards the authorised signatory, and that the matter still being pending adjudication before the Roster Bench, this Court is of the view that the final order passed by the Roster Bench needs to be awaited in this regard.

¶52

The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 10^th June, 2026, passed by the Vacation Bench, which reads as under:

¶53

Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that on the basis of the order

¶54

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

¶55

Page 7 of 8

¶56

dated 29^th May, 2026, passed by the Roster Bench, the Vacation Bench had directed that the respondent-PNB shall resume the normal banking operations, and honour all cheques/payment instruments of the petitionerhospital strictly in terms of the Resolution dated 22^nd December, 2025.

¶57

There was a further direction that the existing operational mandate, i.e., any two signatories from Group A together with the mandatory signature of the Finance Controller from Group B, shall continue.

¶58

At this stage, this Court notes the submission made by learned Senior Counsels appearing for respondent no. 4 that the Vacation Bench vide order dated 10^th June, 2026, could not have passed any directions above and beyond the directions passed by the Roster Bench vide order dated 29^th May, 2026.

¶59

However, since the interpretation of the directions of the Court issued vide order dated 29^th May, 2025, is still pending adjudication before the Roster Bench, it is directed that the plea regarding the conundrum, i.e., whether the interpretation/direction by the Vacation Bench vide order dated 10^th June, 2026, was in line with what the Roster Bench had intended, shall also be raised before the Roster Bench.

¶60

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶61

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶62

Needless to state, with the disposal of the present petition, all the interim directions stand merged with this final order passed by this Court. 29. The next date of 11^th September, 2026, stands cancelled.

¶63

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶64

AUGUST 12, 2026 ak

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Page 8 of 8

¶67

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 2.08.2026 19:57:07

Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust (Regd) v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust (Regd) v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaluddin Alias Kamal Uddin and Ors. Vs Sanjay Arora and Ors.

Rss Degree College Vs Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Iofs, Member Secretary, Ncte and Anr.

State President, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Casual and Contract Workers Union, Uttarakhand Vs Mr. Parmod Kumar Jain, Chief General Manager, Telecom, West, BSNL & Anr.

State President, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Casual and Contract Workers Union, Uttarakhand Vs Mr. Pramod Kumar Jain, Chief General Manager, Telecom, West, BSNL & Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Ravi Babu , Assistant Commissioner, Cgst , Division Daryaganj

Sh Veer Sain Vs Sh. Surender Singh and Others

Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs M a Zahid Proprietor Smsk Mineral Trading Company

Shish Ram & Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla Secretary Mha & Anr.