Bombay High Court
Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd vs Reserve Bank Of India on 20 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.17756 OF 2026
Zanmai Labs Private Limited, ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Reserve Bank of India, ]
2. Yes Bank Limited, ]
3. Union of India, ]
Through Ministry of Finance Department, New Delhi ] .. Respondents
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vyapak Desai and
Mr. Tejas Mahamuni, i/by Mr. Indrajeet Hingane, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Hita Chandarana with Ms. Shubhi Dotiya, Advocates, i/by Desai &
Diwanji, for Respondent No.1-RBI.
Ms. Niyomi Jariwala, Advocate for Respondent No.2-Yes Bank.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 20TH MAY 2026
[ VACATION COURT ]
P.C. :
1. The Petitioner is engaged in providing crypto-exchange services and operates the "WazirX Platform" which facilitates trading in virtual digital currencies / crypto currencies for its users. Mr. Doctor, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has all necessary statutory permissions to operate the "WazirX Platform". In its ordinary course of its business, large volumes of 1/5 13-WP(L)-17756-2026.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:40:01 ::: financial transactions are processed through Respondent No.2-Bank, which had been providing Application Programming Interface ("API") services enabling seamless transfer and settlement of funds between the Petitioner and its customers trading on the said platform.
2. Mr. Doctor submits that the Petitioner has been continuously availing the API services since February 2024 and has been operating multiple bank accounts maintained with Respondent No.2. He submits that by an email of 24th March 2026, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner that it shall discontinue the API services with effect from 22 nd April 2026 on account of changes in its internal policy. The Petitioner protested and Respondent No.2, by an e-mail dated 16 th April 2026 withdrew the discontinuation notice and informed that its API services will not be discontinued. Despite this, the API services were abruptly discontinued on 21st April 2026 without any prior intimation. The Petitioner was informed on 24th April 2026 that the API activation request could not be enabled. The Petitioner was simultaneously informed to approach the Office of Banking Ombudsman under Respondent No.1-RBI in the event of any grievance.
3. Mr. Doctor submits that the Petitioner accordingly lodged a complaint before the Office of Banking Ombudsman on 30 th April 2026. 2/5
13-WP(L)-17756-2026.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:40:01 ::: However, till date, no steps have been taken on its complaint by Respondent no.1. Thereafter on 12th May 2026, Respondent No.2 has also blocked the Petitioner from manually accessing the payment application and online banking facilities required for operating its accounts. The Petitioner has been prevented from accessing and operating its funds lying in the accounts maintained with Respondent No.2. Such arbitrary action has brought the Petitioner's business operations to a complete standstill and causes grave commercial prejudice. He therefore prays for ad-interim relief of restoration of the API services along with all incidental banking services to the Petitioner as were available to it prior to 21st April 2026.
4. Ms. Chandarana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1 submits that a copy of the Petition has been served only recently and therefore she is unable to obtain complete instructions in the matter. The learned counsel submits that there is no regulatory framework for directing Respondent no.2 to provide the API facility to the Petitioner.
5. Ms. Niyomi Jariwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2, raises an objection on the maintainability of the Petition and submits that matters of contractual arrangement cannot be 3/5 13-WP(L)-17756-2026.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:40:01 ::: agitated before the writ Court. She submits that the API facility is a discretionary banking service extended by the Bank and the Petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of legal right, continuation of such services. No prejudice is caused as the Petitioner can avail similar arrangements with any other banking institution. On instructions, the learned counsel submits that the manual banking facilities/access would be restored shortly, though the Bank opposes restoration of the API services in view of an internal review undertaken in accordance with its policies and guidelines.
6. We have considered the submissions and perused the material placed on record. The Petitioner had been availing the API services continuously since February 2024 as a part of its business operations. Although a notice proposing discontinuation was initially issued on 24 th March 2026, Respondent No.2 by an email dated 16th April 2026 informed the Petitioner to ignore the earlier communication and that the API services would continue. Despite such communication, the services were abruptly disabled on 21st April 2026, on the basis of unspecified internal policies and guidelines without disclosing any particulars for the abrupt action. When a grievance/complaint is lodged with the Banking Ombudsman, there is no response which has rendered Petitioner without 4/5 13-WP(L)-17756-2026.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:40:01 ::: any forum to agitae its issue. It is only in these circumstances, in our prima facie view, denial of banking access and API services and non-redressel of its complaint by Respondent no.1 is likely to cause irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner, as the functioning of its business will get severely affected. Hence, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) as modified by us is granted, which reads as follows:
"Until the next date of hearing, Respondent No.2 is directed to restore the API services provided to the Petitioner together with all incidental banking facilities and services which were being availed by the Petitioner prior to 21st April 2026."
7. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within 3 working days. Affidavit-in-reply shall be filed by the Respondents on or before 8th June 2026. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties, including the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition are expressly kept open.
8. List the matter on 12th June 2026.
[ SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA SNEHA 5/5
ABHAY DIXIT
ABHAY Date: 13-WP(L)-17756-2026.doc Dixit
DIXIT 2026.05.21
17:08:15
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:40:01 :::