Bombay High Court
Manjari Ashok Kacker vs Uco Bank on 24 December, 2025
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
WP(L)/36650/2025
Manjari Vs. UCO Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36650 OF 2025
Manjari Ashok Kacker ... Petitioner
V/s.
UCO Bank ... Respondent
_______________________________________
Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. D. J. Kakalia, Ms. Bhavna S. Jaipuria and Mr.
Paresh Patkar and Ms. Bhakti Chandan i/b Mulla & Mulla & CB & C for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Prakash Shinde a/w Ms. Niyati Merchant and Ms. Rajlaxmi Pawar i/b
MDP Legal for the Respondent.
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15th DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th DECEMBER 2025
ORDER (Per Farhan P. Dubash, J.) :
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 7 th May 2025 (impugned SCN), the order dated 26th September 2025 (impugned order) and all consequent actions taken by the Respondent-Bank, acting in furtherance of or relying upon the impugned order, under which, the Petitioner has been classified as a ' fraudulent borrower' by the Respondent-Bank.
Page 1 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank
2. A narration of the facts, in so far as they are relevant to the adjudication of the present Writ Petition, is set out hereunder for ready reference:
(a) On 16th September 2024, the Petitioner was appointed as a Non-
Executive Director on the Board of Reliance Communications Ltd. (RCOM). Her designation was subsequently changed to Independent Director on 18th September 2018 and thereafter, on 15th November 2019, she is stated to have resigned from the Board of RCOM.
(b) On 15th May 2018, RCOM was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) pursuant to an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (NCLT).
(c) On 7th May 2024, the Respondent-Bank issued the impugned SCN against the Petitioner.
(d) On 28th May 2024, the Petitioner, through her Advocates, responded to the impugned SCN stating that no specific allegations were made against her and that the Forensic Audit Page 2 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank Report dated 15th October 2020 (FAR) that was relied upon by the Respondent-Bank in the impugned SCN, was commissioned during the course of insolvency proceedings and therefore, could not be used by the Respondent-Bank for the purposes of classifying the Petitioner as a fraudulent borrower. The Petitioner also sought for the documents and material that was relied upon in the FAR so as to enable her to prepare an effective response to the impugned SCN since she had resigned from RCOM almost 5 years prior thereto.
(e) By her letter dated 12th June 2024, the Petitioner reiterated that she had been a Non-Executive Director of RCOM and she was not involved in its day-to-day affairs and therefore, could not be penalized by the Respondent-Bank.
(f) Canara Bank had also issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner seeking to classify her as a fraudulent borrower. This was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) No. 37788 of 2024. By an order dated 20 th December 2024, this Court granted a stay in favour of the Petitioner against the Show Cause Notice issued by Canara Bank. Page 3 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank
(g) On 29th April 2025, the State Bank of India, being the lead Bank of the consortium of lenders of RCOM, withdrew its Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner which sought to classify her account as 'fraud', as is sought to be done in the impugned SCN.
(h) On 10th July 2025, Writ Petition (L) No. 37788 of 2024 was withdrawn and disposed of by recording the statement of Canara Bank that it was withdrawing the order declaring the Petitioner as a fraudulent borrower.
(i) On 9th September 2025, an order came to be passed by this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 27364 of 2024 (filed by the Petitioner challenging the Show Cause Notice and order passed by the Bank of India declaring her as a fraudulent borrower) staying the effect, operation and implementation of the said order, pending the hearing and final disposal of the said Writ Petition.
(j) In the present case, Respondent Bank passed the impugned order 26th September 2025 classifying the Petitioner as a fraudulent borrower by relying on the Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management in Commercial Banks (including Page 4 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank Regional Rural Banks) and All India Financial Institutions (RBI Master Directions on Fraud - 2024). Hence the present Writ Petition.
3. Mr. Karl Tamboly, Learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioner has argued the matter for interim reliefs viz. stay of the impugned SCN and the impugned order as sought in prayer clauses
(d) & (e) of the present Writ Petition. He submits that beside the several factual grounds of challenge that are pleaded in the Petition, the main grounds which would entitle him to the interim relief are as under:- (i) the Petitioner was a Non-Executive Director/Independent Director of RCOM and not responsible for its day-to-day actions/affairs and therefore, in the absence of the impugned SCN and the impugned order itemizing specific actions of the Petitioner as fraudulent and stated to have been committed whilst operating the affairs/account of RCOM, the Respondent-Bank has acted contrary to the RBI Master Directions on Fraud - 2024, (ii) principals of natural justice have not been followed in as much as, the Petitioner was not provided with the documents by the Respondent-Bank which would enable her to prepare an effective response to the impugned SCN, and (iii) the impugned SCN and the impugned order are contrary to the provisions of the RBI Master Directions on Fraud - 2024. Page 5 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank
4. Mr. Tamboly relies on the provisions of the Companies Act and submits that an Independent Director/Non-Executive Director is not liable for various acts of the company if such acts occur without their knowledge and/or are without their consent or connivance. He therefore submits that since the impugned SCN and the impugned order do not itemize and point out any specific acts stated to have been done by the Petitioner, they are contrary to the RBI Master Directions on Fraud - 2024. He reiterates that the Petitioner was not a Key Managerial Personnel of RCOM, and therefore, not involved in its day-to-day business and affairs, and as a result, the impugned SCN and the impugned order are wholly misdirected against her.
5. Mr. Tamboly points out that despite repeated requests to the Respondent-Bank, they did not provide the underlying documents and records of RCOM to the Petitioner that would enable her to prepare an effective response to the impugned SCN. He submits that by the time the impugned SCN was issued by the Respondent-Bank on 7 th May 2024, the Petitioner had already resigned from the Board of RCOM on 15th November 2019 and as a result, did not have access to its records and was therefore unable to prepare an effective reply to the impugned SCN. On this ground also, Mr. Tamboly submits that the impugned SCN and impugned order are vitiated, being in violation of Page 6 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank the principles of natural justice.
6. Mr. Tamboly also submits that the impugned SCN has been issued relying on the Forensic Audit Report dated 15 th October 2020 (FAR). He submits that the impugned order has been issued after almost 3½ years from the date of the FAR and thus in violation of the RBI Master Directions on Fraud - 2024. Moreover, he submits that several other banks who had also relied on the FAR and issued similar notices against the Petitioner, have since, withdrawn the same and/or withdrawn the orders passed against the Petitioner classifying her as a fraudulent borrower.
7. Mr. Tamboly relies on the decision of this Court in Ankit Bhuwalka v.
IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr.1 which expressly provides that all necessary documents and information must be made available to a party who is called to show cause. He also relies on the decision of this Court in the Petitioner's own case in Writ Petition (L) No. 27364 of 2025 against the Bank of India in which, she had challenged a similar action by the said Bank, when an order dated 9 th September 2025 came to be passed. This Court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinlapati Srinivasa Raju v. Securities and Exchange Board of India 2 1 2025 SCC Online Bom 96 2 (2018) 7 SCC 443 Page 7 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank held that Non-Executive Directors are persons who are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of running of the company and are not in charge of and/or responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Mr. Tamboly therefore submits that the interim reliefs sought by the Petitioner are required to be granted in her favour.
8. Mr. Prakash C. Shinde, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent-Bank states that his client is desirous of filing a detailed reply to the present Writ Petition so as to deal with and answer all the points raised therein. In the meanwhile, he seeks to defer the hearing of this matter. He however states that in the records of the Registrar of Companies, the name of the Petitioner is still shown as a Director of RCOM and produced a printout to that effect.
9. Having heard both the parties and after going through the record, we note that the Respondent-Bank has not furnished any documents and/or material to the Petitioner so as to enable her to prepare an effective reply to the impugned SCN despite her request. A perusal of the impugned SCN would reveal that, it does not identify any specific violation that is stated to have been done by the Petitioner. Instead, it merely refers to the FAR and states that since the FAR concludes that there was an element of fraud identified in the loan account of RCOM, Page 8 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank the Petitioner is called upon to show cause as to why she should not be classified as a fraudulent borrower, without identifying the specific violations that she is stated to have committed. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order also reveals that save and except for certain omnibus findings on four points recorded therein, no details or particulars, including interalia the involvement and role of the Petitioner in the fraudulent activity, is set out.
10. In these circumstances, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that in the absence of the relevant documents and material that was referred and relied upon in the FAR, it would not be possible for the Petitioner to prepare an effective response to the allegations of which she was called upon to show cause. Moreover, prima facie, this Court is of the view that even the impugned order does not set out the exact role and involvement of the Petitioner in the fraudulent activity, stated to have been done by RCOM. This is an essential ingredient of an order passed under the RBI Master Directions on Fraud - 2024 for concluding that the Petitioner is a fraudulent borrower.
11. Moreover, there is also no explanation forthcoming as to why, the impugned SCN was issued by the Respondent-Bank on 7th May 2024, relying on the FAR that was prepared on 15 th October 2020 - almost 3 Page 9 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank ½ years ago. The decision of this Court in Ankit Bhuwalka (supra) would also apply to the present case and it was incumbent on the Respondent-Bank to have furnished the materials and documents to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order.
12. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:
:: ORDER ::
(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 26th September 2025 is hereby stayed and any further proceedings initiated or that may be initiated in respect of the impugned order and any other steps taken in furtherance thereof and pursuant thereto are also stayed.
(ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the Respondent-Bank is hereby directed to refrain from issuing any information and/or direction to any agency pertaining to the classification/declaration of the account of the Petitioner as "fraud" pursuant to the impugned order dated 26th September 2025 including the reporting of the account of the Page 10 of 11
-------------------------------------
Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 ::: WP(L)/36650/2025 Manjari Vs. UCO Bank Petitioner as "fraud" to the Reserve Bank of India and/or the Central Fraud Registry if they have not already done so.
(iii) The Respondent shall file its reply to the present Writ Petition on or before 21st January 2026. The Petitioner shall file its Rejoinder thereto, on or before 4th February 2026.
(iv) The present Writ Petition shall be placed on 9 th February 2026 for hearing at the admission stage.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. )
Jyoti
WP(L)/36650/2025
Digitally signed
JYOTI by JYOTI
PRAKASH
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR Date: 2025.12.24
16:09:43 +0530
Page 11 of 11
------------------------------------- Order dated 15th December 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 21:14:44 :::