Bombay High Court: The present petition was filed by Naresh Goyal, Jet Airways’ founder, praying to set aside the Show Cause Notice (‘impugned notice’) dated 01-07-2025, which contained an order passed by the Bank of India (‘Bank’) declaring his subject account as ‘fraud’.
The Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ., noted that the Bank did not provide an opportunity to Naresh Goyal to represent thereby violating the rule of audi alteram partem, and consequently, quashed the impugned notice.
Two Show Cause Notices were issued to the founder of Jet Airways, Naresh Goyal. The first Show Cause Notice, dated 30-12-2024, was issued without providing himthe report of the forensic audit conducted by the Bank. This was later provided by the impugned notice dated 01-07-2025. It was submitted that Naresh Goyal was not granted an opportunity of a representation before the classification of his account as ‘fraud’. He was aggrieved by his account being classified as ‘fraud’ for which he was not even served any order by the Bank making it evident that the classification of his account was without any justification or reasons. He prayed for the notice to be set aside and not to be proceeded with and further that all consequent actions and proceedings emanating therefrom to be declared as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice, and bad in law.
The Court referred to SBI v. Rajesh Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court had laid down that the classification of the borrower account as ‘fraud’ was preceded by the observation of the rule audi alteram partem, which was required to be read into Clause 8.9.4 and 8.9.5 of the Master Directions on Frauds. The lender banks were to provide an opportunity to the borrower to explain the findings in the forensic audit report, and to make a representation, before the account was classified as fraud.
The Court noted that the impugned notice proceeded on the premise of re-examination by the Bank, of Naresh Goyal’s account which had been earlier classified as ‘fraud’ and the Court observed that mere re-examination of the earlier classification of his account did not meet with the rule of audi alteram partem as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Agarwal (supra).
Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order classifying Naresh Goyal’s account as ‘fraud’ and the impugned notice which sought re-examination of his account was also set aside. The Court clarified that the Bank would be at liberty to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice but by any Committee of the Bank other than the one that had issued the impugned notice.
The Court directed that the Bank must comply with the principles of natural justice and the rule of audi alteram partem in carrying out the exercise pursuant to the issuance of fresh Show Cause Notice, in the event they so desired, for the purpose of determining whether Naresh Goyal’s account should be classified as ‘fraud’. The Court also ordered the Bank not to take any action pursuant to the earlier classification of his account and the impugned notice, which had already been set aside by this order.
[Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal v. Bank of India, Writ Petition (L) No. 26973 of 2025, decided on 25-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Counsel, Ameet Naik, Abhishek Kale, Tushar Hathiramani, Shraddha Achliya, Pranjal Agarwal, Harish Khedkar, Devashish Jagirdar and Ronit Doshi i/b. Naik Naik and Co.
For the Respondents: Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, Rakesh Singh, Kedar Nayak and S. D. Shetty i/b. M.V. Kini and Co., Huzan Bhumgara with Pradeep Mane and Shubhi Dotiya i/b. Desai and Diwanji.
