Calcom Vision Limited v. State Bank Of India & ORS.

$~107 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4915/2025 CALCOM VISION LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:

Appearance not given versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for SBI.

Mr Manu Beri, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Mr. Raunek Raheja & Ms. Kudrat Mann, Advs. for R-3 & 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 07.04.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- "(a) Direct the Respondents to take immediate steps for removal of the Petitioner's name from all defaulters lists (Experion and CIBIL);

(b) Mandate the Respondents to update CIBIL report to reflect full settlement of the Petitioner's dues;

(c) Direct the Respondents to expunge the name entry of the Petitioner from CIC reports and Suit Filed Database of TransUnion CIBIL Limited and Experian Credit Information Company of India Limited;

(d) Award appropriate compensation for irreparable harm to the Petitioner's professional and financial standing; (e) Direct the Respondents to issue apology/clarificatory statement and admit the wrongful entry of the Petitioner in the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:36:19

wilful defaulter list;

(f) For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to (applicable statue/ contract provision), as permitted by law; (g) Pass any other or further relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly the petitioner was a defaulter in its loan obligation but after the order of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the petitioner in terms of one time settlement has cleared all its loan obligation vis a vis the banks in question. However, despite that the petitioner is continued to be shown as a defaulter. 3.

Mr. Beri, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, states that the petitioner will be shown as past defaulter but will not be shown as a subsisting defaulter as the petitioner, admittedly, had defaulted in its loan obligations in the past. 4.

The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the no objection certificates issued by the banks/their subsequent assignees and take action in accordance with its extant rules and regulations for removing the name of the petitioner from the subsisting defaulters in case there is no other default of the petitioner reported to respondent No. 3. The same shall be done expeditiously and not letter than four weeks from today.

5.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 7, 2026/NG The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:36:19