Calcutta High Court
Punjab National Bank And Anr vs Vikas Agarwal on 29 July, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
OD - 12
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/385/2024
IA NO: GA/2/2025, GA/3/2025
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.
VS
VIKAS AGARWAL
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Date : 29th July, 2025
Appearance :
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Adv.
..for the appellant.
Mr. Anirban Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Manabendra Nath Bandyopahdyay, Adv.
...for CBI.
Mr. Tridib Bose, Adv.
Mr.V.V.V. Sastry, Adv.
Mr.Debjyoti Saha, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court : IA No.GA/3/2025 is an application made at the behest of the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking to be impleaded as a party respondent in
the present appeal. The appeal, at the best of the secured creditor, is directed against an
order dated May 15, 2024 passed in WPO/415/2024.
By the impugned order the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition
with the observation that, the judgment and order dated November 17, 2023 passed in
WPO/1626/2023 is equally applicable to the private respondent herein. The learned
Single Judge also clarified that, the complaint lodged by the appellant dated June 18,
2021 requesting CBI to register a FIR is quashed and set aside.
It is contended on behalf of the CBI that it is a necessary and proper party in the
appeal. It is submitted that, the complaint of the appellant dated June 18, 2021 was
lodged by the appellant with the CBI. CBI registered a First Information Report on the
basis of such complaint. Therefore, prior to quashing of the First Information Report,
the CBI was required to be heard. Moreover, the private respondent who filed the writ
petition, was well aware that the appellant lodged the complaint with CBI. Therefore,
according to the CBI, the private respondent was seeking to obtain an order in the
absence of CBI.
Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits, on instruction, that, the
appellant does not object to the prayer of the CBI being added as a party respondent in
the present appeal. Learned Advocate for the private respondent/writ petitioner
submits that, his client objects to CBI being added as a party respondent in the appeal.
He submits that, both the bank and CBI are in violation of the guidelines of the Reserve
Bank of India relating to classification of a borrower's account as fraud.
We find from the records that, the private respondent/writ petitioner is a
borrower of several credit facilities from the appellant before us. Exposure of the
appellant before us in such credit facilities is in excess of Rs.1964 crores. The amount
remains unpaid till date.
The appellant lodged a complaint dated June 18, 2021 with the CBI. Acting in
terms of such complaint, CBI registered a First Information Report.
The private respondent/writ petitioner rakes up with the issues with regard to
classification of the account as a fraud in terms of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.
Such issues are required to be considered in the appeal. However, fact remains
that, the complaint against which the writ petition was filed, was addressed to CBI. CBI
acted thereon had lodged a First Information Report. Therefore, the CBI was required to
be made as a party respondent in the writ petition, even on the principles of the CBI
being a proper party if not on the basis of CBI being a necessary party.
In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to allow IA No.GA/3/2025. CBI
is added as a party respondent in the present appeal. Learned Advocate-on-Record for
the appellant is granted leave to amend the memorandum of appeal as also the said
application incorporating the CBI as a party respondent in the present appeal.
The interim order passed in the present appeal stands extended till September
30, 2025 or until further order, whichever is earlier.
List the appeal on August 5, 2025.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
(PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.)
sd/
