Bombay High Court
Microfibers Pvt Ltd vs Yes Bank Ltd on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:9585-DB 9-OSWP-1706-2018.DOCX
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1706 OF 2018
Microfibers Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
Yes Bank Ltd & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Niyam Bhasin, for the Petitioner.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY CORAM M.S. Sonak &
MORMARE
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
DATED: 26th June 2025.
MORMARE
Date: 2025.06.27
15:02:34 +0530
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.S. Sonak J):
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Despite the
service, neither any representative of the Bank nor their
Advocates are present.
2. The Petitioner has premises in Bombay, and there were
considerable difficulties in renting out these premises due to
the lack of a Bank account in the name of the Petitioner.
Therefore, in January 2018, the Petitioner applied to the
Respondent-Bank for the opening of a Bank account. By
communication dated 24-26th April 2018, the Respondent-
Bank informed the Petitioner that providing an Aadhar Card
was mandatory. Without an Aadhar Card, no Bank account
can be opened in the name of the Petitioner.
26th June 2025
9-OSWP-1706-2018.DOCX
3. The Petitioner represented to the Bank and even pointed
out interim orders made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
suggesting that insisting on an Aadhaar Card for opening a
Bank account was not legal or proper. However, since the
Respondent-Bank did not yield, the Petitioner instituted this
Petition in June 2018.
4. The Respondent-Bank filed a detailed Reply. However,
when the matter was taken up by the coordinate Bench
comprising BP Dharmadhikari, J (as his Lordship then was)
and Sarang Kotwal, J, a statement was made by the Bank that
after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Justice
Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr vs Union of India & Ors ,1 the
Respondent-Bank is not insisting upon an Aadhar Card for
opening of a Bank account accordingly, a statement was made
that the Bank would open a Bank account in the name of the
Petitioner without insisting upon an Aadhar Card.
5. The above was recorded in the order dated 29th
November 2018, which reads as follows:
"1. Learned Counsel for Respondent-Bank states that
after Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Respondent-
Bank is not demanding Aadhar Card and is ready and
willing to open account of the Petitioner.
2. We direct the Petitioner to contact the Respondent-
Bank for that purpose within one week from today.
3. Insofar as the prayer for damages concerned, we
permit the Respondent-Bank to file reply.
4. Rule on damages. Hearing expedited."
Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012.
26th June 2025
9-OSWP-1706-2018.DOCX
6. Following the order dated 29th November 2018, the
Respondent-Bank opened a Bank account in the name of the
Petitioner in January 2019. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner confirms this position. He, however, submits that
the Rule was issued on the prayer for damages in the order
dated 29th November 2018, and the Bank was also given an
opportunity to file its reply insofar as the prayer for damages
was concerned.
7. We note that despite our order of 29th November 2018,
the Respondent-Bank had not bothered to file any reply on the
aspect of the prayer for compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that from
January 2018 to January 2019, the petitioner was unable to
rent the premises in Mumbai. He pointed out that the
Founder-Director had already passed away and was survived
by his 84-year-old wife, one daughter, and the Petitioner. They
submitted through the Petitioner that they could gain no
income by renting the premises. The learned counsel
submitted that the rent in the area was in the range of Rs. 1.5
lakhs per month. Still, compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs was
claimed in the Petition. He submitted that the Court may
award this compensation.
9. In April 2018, when the Bank insisted upon the
Petitioner's Aadhar Card, there were interim orders made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Justice Puttaswamy
(Supra) operating. The orders prima facie suggest that at the
relevant time, Bank accounts were to be opened only if a
26th June 2025
9-OSWP-1706-2018.DOCX
party could produce proof of having applied for an Aadhaar
Card. However, Justice Puttaswamy's case was finally disposed
of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26th September 2018.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the requirement of
providing an Aadhar Card for opening a Bank account.
Therefore, from 26th September 2018 onwards, there was no
impediment to the Respondent-Bank opening the Bank
account without insisting on the Aadhaar Card. The Bank
account was ultimately opened in January 2019 in the name
of the Petitioner.
10. Considering the above circumstances, we believe that
the claim for compensation in the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs is
exaggerated and cannot be granted. However, we agree with
the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no
justification for not opening the Bank account after 26th
September 2018. The Bank account was ultimately opened in
January 2019. Therefore, for a period of three to four months,
the Petitioner was unable to rent out the premises.
11. In a matter of this nature, we would have ordinarily
relegated the petitioner to the alternate remedy. But the Rule
was issued on the prayer for compensation in 2018. The
Counsel pointed out that the Petitioner does not undertake
any business as such, and the renting of the only premises
held by the Company provided some relief to the 84-year-old
surviving director and her unmarried daughter. Considering
these peculiar circumstances, we do not relegate the
petitioner to the ordinary remedies.
26th June 2025
9-OSWP-1706-2018.DOCX
12. No reply was filed by the Bank on the prayer for
compensation, despite an opportunity being granted. At the
same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the Respondent-
Bank, on 29th November 2018, made a statement that it
would open the Bank account without insisting on an Aadhar
Card, given the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Therefore, upon taking into consideration of the above
circumstances cumulatively, we direct the Respondent-Bank to
pay the Petitioner compensation of Rs. 50,000/- within a
period of eight weeks from the date on which the Petitioner
provides a copy of this order to the Respondent-Bank.
14. The Rule in this Petition is disposed of with the above
directions. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. All
concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
{
26th June 2025
