Ms Project Equipment and Construction through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Vs Reserve Bank of India

2026:JHHC:17763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

WP(C) No.3709 of 2021

M/s Project Equipment & Construction, through it's Proprietor Sanjay Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Nand Kishore Prasad, having office address at Basant Vihar Colony, Near Dhangi More, P.O.BCCL Township (Koyla Nagar), P.S. Saraidhella, District Dhanbad-826005. … Petitioner(s). Versus

¶6

Reserve Bank of India RRDA Building, Pragati Sadan (4th Floor), Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi-834001.

¶7

M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited, Registered Office at 11th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, P.O. Parel, P.S. Parel, District Mumbai-400013 (Maharashtra), having regional office at 2nd Floor, Flat No.-2C & 2D, South Block, 71 Park Street, P.O. Park Street, P.S. Park Street, District Kolkata-700016 (West Bengal), local office situated at City Plaza Building, Ground Floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, P.O. Durgapur, P.S. Durgapur, District Durgapur-712216 (West Bengal).

¶8

… Respondent(s).

¶9

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Arpita Sinha Sarkar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sparsh Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate …......

¶10

08 / 18.06.2026 : Heard the learned counsels representing the petitioner, M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶11

2. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel admits that he appears on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India in other cases and he has received instruction in this case but he has not received vakalatnama. His appearance is accepted by this Court. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶12

(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other like writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.1 to consider the complaints of the

¶13

1

¶14

2026:JHHC:17763

¶15

Petitioner dated 11.06.2021 and 25.06.2021 and pass appropriate directions against M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited, under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 58G read with clause (aa) of sub-section (5) of section 58B of the Reserve bank of India Act, 1934 for committing gross violation of the directions issued by RBI regarding Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services by NBFCs and Fair Practices Code;

¶16

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other like writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.2 to provide a re-casted statement of account to the Petitioner, giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to regularize his accounts being vehicle loan Account Numbers being TCFCV0513000010633141, TCFCV0513000010633334, TCFCV0513000010633335, TCFCV0513000010633336, TCFCV0513000010633337 and restore the vehicles of the Petitioner being NL01AE/1249, NL01AE/1250, NL01AE/1251, NL01AE/1253, in running condition; And / Or

¶17

(iii) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respondent no. 1-Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to pass an appropriate direction/order considering the complaints made by him against M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited. It is the grievance that complaints have been filed under section 58G(b)(1) read with section 58B(5)(aa) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

¶19

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited has committed gross violation of the directions issued by the RBI regarding Code of Conduct in outsourcing of financial services by non-banking financial corporations and fair practice, thus, he has lodged complaints against them.

¶20

6. It is his case that the petitioner has purchased some vehicle on hire purchase through M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited and there is some dispute between the petitioner

¶21

2

¶22

2026:JHHC:17763

¶23

and M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited, thus, complaints have been filed. The case of M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited is that due to default the vehicle has also been repossessed.

¶24

7. Since the petitioner has raised grievance and has made complaints before the RBI, the RBI should consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶25

8. Considering the nature of order which I intend to pass, it is not necessary to call for the counter-affidavit either from the M/s Tata Capital Finance Services Limited or the RBI.

¶26

9. Since the main prayer in this writ petition is a direction upon the RBI to take decision on the complaints, without entering into the merits of the complaints, I direct the RBI to pass an appropriate orders on the complaints and communicate it to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶27

10. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RBI. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶29

18.06.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

¶30

Uploaded on 22.06.2026

¶31

3

Ms Project Equipment and Construction through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Project Equipment and Construction through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar v. Reserve Bank of India

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

Kailash Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohamad Ahsan Faridi Vs the Union of India

The Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., Golmuri Branch, Jamshedpur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarju Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Kamal Vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Mangru Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand