Jaylon Impex Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank
2026 Latest Caselaw 2524 Bom

Bombay High Court

Jaylon Impex Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank on 11 March, 2026

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

2026:BHC-OS:6322-DB                                                                      902-WPL-34094-2025.DOC



               PURTI               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               PRASAD
               PARAB                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
            Digitally signed by
            PURTI PRASAD PARAB
            Date: 2026.03.11
            18:20:03 +0530

                                       WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 34094 OF 2025

             Jaylon Impex Private Limited and Ors.              ...Petitioners
                    Versus
             Punjab National Bank and Ors.                      ...Respondents
                                              _______
             Mr. Charles DeSouza a/w Mr. Puneet Gogad and Ms. Pragati Gothi for the
             Petitioners.
             Mr. Mandar Soman a/w Mr. Rajkumar K. Shukla and Ms. Saraswati
             Rajpurohit for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                                              _______

                                                    CORAM:       MANISH PITALE &
                                                                 SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                                                    DATE:        11th MARCH 2026

             P.C.

             1.                   Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. On 13th January 2026, this Court issued notice for final disposal, considering a short issue raised on behalf of the Petitioners. The Respondents, i.e., the authorities concerning the Punjab National Bank filed their reply affidavit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has tendered rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record.

3. The principal grievance raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the principles of natural justice were violated when the impugned order dated 8th September 2025 was issued by the Respondent/Bank declaring the Petitioners as "Fraud" in terms of the extant guidelines of the Respondent/Bank issued in consonance with the guidelines/Master Directions on fraud issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that in response to a Show Cause Notice dated 16th July 2025 issued by the Respondent/Bank in the context

Purti Parab

902-WPL-34094-2025.DOC

of declaring the Petitioners as fraud, a reply was submitted before the Respondent/Bank on 13th August 2025. According to the Petitioners, the reply was submitted within the window of 21 days specified in the Show Cause Notice.

5. In this context, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited attention of this Court to the physical copy of the reply as also the reply forwarded by e-mail to the Respondent/Bank.

6. In the impugned order dated 8 th September 2025, it is recorded that no reply was received from the Petitioners within the timeline prescribed in the Show Cause Notice and on that basis the Respondent/ Bank proceeded to pass the impugned order.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank disputes that the reply of the Petitioners was received within the aforesaid period of 21 days specified in Paragraph No. 7 of the Show Cause Notice dated 16 th July 2025.

8. On a pointed query put to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank as to whether there is a guideline or a mandatory requirement specified by the RBI with regard to such a window of only 21 days to respond to the Show Cause Notice, it was fairly stated that no such mandatory guideline has been specified. Yet, it was submitted that since the Show Cause Notice itself required the Petitioners to respond within the timeline of 21 days, it was incumbent upon the Petitioners to do so.

9. While exercising writ jurisdiction, we are not going into the disputed question as to whether the reply was received by the Respondent/Bank within the period of 21 days or was it received on the 22nd day. We are concerned with the version of the Petitioners being taken into account by the Respondent/Bank, particularly when drastic civil consequences are visited upon the Petitioners in the context of they being

Purti Parab

902-WPL-34094-2025.DOC

declared "Fraud". Any such finding by the Respondent/Bank obviously has serious consequences for the Petitioners and therefore, we are of the opinion that their version ought to be considered by the Respondent/Bank before passing an appropriate order.

10. Only on the aforesaid ground, we are inclined to interfere in the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8 th September 2025 is quashed and set aside. The Respondent/Bank is directed to take into account the reply submitted by the Petitioners to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and then to pass a reasoned order in the matter.

12. We are of the also opinion that for a comprehensive consideration of the version of the Petitioners an opportunity can be granted to them to submit a further reply before the Respondent/Bank. Accordingly, the Petitioners are permitted to submit further reply within two weeks from today. The Respondent/Bank shall give personal hearing to the Petitioners on 6th April 2026.

13. The Respondent/Bank is directed to take into consideration such further reply also, if any, submitted by the Petitioners in response to the said Show Cause Notice. Thereupon the Respondent/Bank can proceed to pass a reasoned order.

14. It is reiterated that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

15. The Respondent/Bank is directed to take all consequential steps in the light of the impugned order dated 8 th September 2025 being quashed in the aforesaid manner.

Purti Parab

902-WPL-34094-2025.DOC

16. Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Purti Parab