High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/1314/2026

Anoop Seth v. Punjab National Bank

2026-02-09Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh13 pages

$~4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1314/2026, CM APPL. 6430/2026 & CM APPL. 6431/2026 ANOOP SETH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Abhimanyu A. Walia, Mr. Aryan Malik, Mr. Kamakshraj Singh and Mr. Ajnish Aditya, Advs.

versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026 1.

This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

"a) Pass a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 17.12.2025 issued by the Respondent bank; Intimation Letter dated 22.12.2025; classifying/ reporting the Petitioner as 'Fraud' and (b) Pass any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity be passed." 2.

The brief facts of the case are that the IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. ("ITPCL") was incorporated as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) of IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd, to execute and run a The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Thermal Power Project at Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. To fund the project, consortium of lenders was formed with Punjab National Bank as the lead bank which advanced loan to ITPCL.

The petitioner was appointed Managing Director of ITPCL on 24.07.2014 and the petitioner resigned from the same on 10.02.2016. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as a Nominee Director of ITPCL without executive powers or responsibilities till August 2017. He resigned from the said role in August- September, 2017. 4.

The Board of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited was superseded by a newly constituted government nominated board. 5.

The borrowing account of ITPCL was classified as a Non-performing Asset on 30.01.2019 as per the RBI guidelines. Due to defaults in repayment of loans advanced by the consortium Bank the respondent appointed M/s Grant Thornton Bharat LLP to conduct a forensic audit. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 15.07.2025 was sent to ITPCL and amongst other directors and the petitioner as well.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice on 26.08.2025 denying all the allegations and after considering the same the petitioner was declared as a fraud vide order dated 17.12.2025 which was communicated vide letter dated 22.12.2025. The said order dated 17.12.2025 and the letter dated 22.12.2025 are under challenge before this Court. 7.

Mr. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, states that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. He further draws my attention to the show cause notice dated wherein the allegations of fraud have been alleged against the petitioner. The same reads as under: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The response to the same is contained in the reply on 26.08.2025 and the operative paragraphs read as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The response quoted by the respondent's Fraud Examination Committee, in the reasons for declaring the petitioner as fraud reads as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

10.

Thereafter, the conclusion of the respondent's Fraud Examination Committee, with respect to the petitioner reads as under: 11.

Per Contra Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the respondent, states that the response of the petitioner was duly considered and appreciated and thereafter the impugned order was passed. He additionally states that the para 6 of the show cause notice categorically states that in case the petitioner requires a personal hearing he is to inform the bank. Since, there was no The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

communication received, no personal hearing was given or is required under law.

12.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

13.

In the present case a perusal of the reply and more particularly quoted above clearly shows that the petitioner has refuted the grounds of fraud by detailed reasons and submissions. He has stated that he was not a Director at the relevant point in time and not concerned with the affairs of the Company ITPCL. The respondent quotes para 1 to 6 of the reply but fails to consider the table annexed giving response to each allegation of fraud. 14.

Since, the same has not been quoted in the impugned order and there is further no discussion on the response of the petitioner on the particular instances of fraud, the conclusion is also devoid of any reason. Declaring a person on entity as fraud has serious consequences. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court in SBI v. Rajesh Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1, categorically states that the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with in complete sense before declaring a person or an entity as a fraud. 15.

Principles of natural justice obviously requires considering of the reply to the show cause notice in detail and dealing with each and every averment/response made therein. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that the reply to allegations of fraud therefore have not been considered in the impugned order.

16.

For the said reasons the impugned order cannot sustain and is hereby set aside. However, this does not prevent the respondent from initiating action in accordance with law after due hearing and complying with the principles of natural justice.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

17.

Mr. Rout, learned counsel, states that let the petitioner appear before the Review Committee and give the details of the documents that are required to by the petitioner.

18.

Let the petitioner appear before the review committee at Plot No.04, Sector 10, Dwarka on 09.03.2026 at 11:00 am and the relevant documents shall be supplied to the petitioner within 2 weeks thereafter and the petitioner shall give a response within 4 weeks from date of supply of relevant documents. Thereafter the respondent shall give a date for personal hearing of the petitioner/nominee and after hearing the petitioner, pass a speaking order.

19.

The counter affidavit handed over in court is taken on record. 20.

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms with pending application, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026/JYH The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.