Hemant Kanoria vs Canara Bank on 19 March, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Hemant Kanoria vs Canara Bank on 19 March, 2025

Bench: Amrita Sinha

    18
19.03.2025
Court No. 14
   AGM


                            WPA 2207 of 2024
                             (CAN 1 of 2025)

                             Hemant Kanoria
                                  Vs.
                               Canara Bank

               Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury. Sr. Adv.
               Mr. D. K. Sarkar.
               Mr. Soumalya Ganguli.
               Mr. Shubhrojyoti Mukherjee.
               Mr. Naman Chowdhury.
               Mr. Samriddho Sen.
                                 ... For the petitioner.

               Mr. Dhruv Dewan.
               Mr. Deepanjan Dutta Roy.
               Ms. Arushi Chandra.
               Ms. R. Sharma.
               Ms. Sanjana Jha.
                            ... For the for the respondents.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the bank seeking to declare the petitioner as fraud. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, order has already been passed declaring the petitioner as fraud.

2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the said declaration and for the first time learning the said fact only from the submission made on behalf of the bank in Court today.

3. Let a copy of the order of declaration of the petitioner as fraud be served upon the learned advocate on record of the petitioner by 25th March, 2025.

4. It will be open for the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit annexing the same.

5. The petitioner relies on the order dated 23 rd September, 2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in WPA 10024/2024 (Hemant Kanoria -Versus- Indian Bank) wherein during the pendency of the writ petition the declaration of fraud was made. The Court was pleased to stay the said declaration as the Court was of the prima facie view that without furnishing relevant documents mentioned in the Forensic Audit Report, the declaration could not have been made.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner has raised similar allegation of non-supply of copies relying on which the show cause notice was issued.

7. It is an admitted fact that if the show cause notice is not issued in accordance with the Master Directions of the Reserve Bank of India, then any step taken subsequent thereto is bound to fail.

8. The petitioner is granted leave to apply before the Bank seeking documents in support of their stand. If such a request is made by the petitioner within a week from date, then the documents shall be supplied to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. If the documents appear to be very voluminous, then inspection of the documents shall be permitted. Copy of the supplementary affidavit shall be served upon the learned advocate representing the respondent bank.

9. The bank may file composite affidavit-in- opposition to the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit within a period of four weeks. Reply, if there be any, be filed within a fortnight thereafter.

10.Liberty to mention the matter for hearing.

11.The order of fraud is directed to be kept in abeyance for the time being.

12.All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

13.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)