Supama Trading Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Other v. Reserve Bank Of India And 2 Other

8 WP 2994-24 WITH IAL 26987-22-OS.DOC Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2994 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.26987 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2994 OF 2024 Supama Trading Private Limited and ors.

...Petitioners/

Applicants

Versus

Reserve Bank of India and ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Vishal Kanade with Ms. Mehernaz Contractor, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Prasad Shenoy through V.C. with Ms. Aditi Pathak, Ms. Megha More and Ms. Twinkle Kalla i/by Blac & Co., for the Respondent No.1.

Mr. Riyaz Khan with Mr. Aditya Juvekar, for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM:

SUMAN SHYAM & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATED:

24th APRIL, 2026.

PC:- 1.

Mr. Vishal Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the central issue involved in this proceeding pertains to fraud declaration by the Respondent No.2 - Bank which was made without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners. Referring to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and ors., reported in (2023) Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date:

2026.04.27 11:23:09 +0530 PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR

8 WP 2994-24 WITH IAL 26987-22-OS.DOC 6 Supreme Court Cases 1, Mr. Kanade submits that law is now settled that the principles of natural justice must be complied with before such fraud declaration.

2.

In view of the above, Mr. Kanade submits that prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Writ Petition have worked out. The Writ Petition can be allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). 3.

The learned counsel further submits that in so far as the remaining prayers/issues including challenge to the FIR is concerned, the Petitioners be granted liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy in the matter.

4.

The prayer of the Petitioners' counsel is not opposed by the other side.

5.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). However, it would be open to the Respondent-Bank to initiate proceedings afresh, if so advised, against the Petitioners, after complying with the principles of natural justice.

6.

In so far as the remaining prayers are concerned, the same are kept open. The Petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy in the matter, as may be permissible under the law. 7.

In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Interim Application also stands disposed of.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {