KRISHNAN VENKATESWARAN SRINIVASANversusUCO BANK

                                                        1/4                   904-WP-1801-26.odt

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO.1801 OF 2026

                          Krishnan Venkateswaran Srinivasan              .... Petitioner

                                versus

                          UCO Bank & Anr.                                .... Respondents
                                                           …....

                          •     Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Sneha Jaisingh,
                                Mr. Akshay Ayush, Ms. Asha Anandkumar, Ms. Vidula Barje
                                i/b. Bharucha and Partners, Advocate for Petitioner.
                          •     Mr. Hafeezur Rahman, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                          •     Mr. Meenor Bhivgade, Chief Manager, UCO Bank.
                          •     Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Aditi Phatak, Twinkle Kalla, Megha More,
                                Juhi Bhayani i/b. BLAC Co., Advocate for Respondent No.2-
                                RBI.

                                            CORAM      : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                         RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                                            DATE       : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                          P.C. :


                          1.             This Petition was originally filed with a prayer for

                               directions to quash and set aside the Fraud Monitoring Report.

                               However during pendency of the Petition they received a
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR                      communication in the nature of order declaring account as fraud
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.09.29
                               and therefore the Petition was amended. The averments in the
17:33:06 +0530



                               memo were amended as well as the prayers were amended.
              Nesarikar
                                   2/4                      904-WP-1801-26.odt

     Now the main prayer which is sought by the Petitioner is as

     follows :


                 “20(b)(a), Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,
                 order or direction to quash and set aside the Impugned
                 Communication dated 16 March 2026, and or, any other
                 communication, intimation or notification in so far as it
                 includes the names of the Petitioner expressly or impliedly
                 in relation to any alleged fraudulent activities in RHFL.”


2.               RHFL stands for Reliance Home Finance Limited. The

     said communication is annexed at Ex.N1 at page No.752-A.



3.               The main grievance apart from the other grounds in

     the Petition is that the show cause notice only includes

     incomplete copies of the Forensic Audit Reports. The complete

     annexures of the Forensic Audit Report are not supplied. The

     specific ground taken in the amended Petition is at page 25-C.

     The grounds Q(b) and Q(c) are important, which are as follows :



                 “b.   The SCN only encloses incomplete copies of the
                       Forensic Audit Reports. The 10 exhibits (listed at page
                       262 of the First Forensic Audit Report) and 46,
                       annexures (listed at page 262 and 264 of the First
                       Forensic Audit Report) have not been provided to the
                                3/4                       904-WP-1801-26.odt

                   Petitioner. Equally, the 7 exhibits (listed at page 207 of
                   the Second Forensic Audit Report) and 94 annexures
                   (listed at pages 208 to 210 of the Second Forensic
                   Audit Report) have also not been provided to the
                   Petitioner.


              c.   The underlying documents considered and, or
                   reviewed by M/s Grant Thornton LLP while preparing
                   the Forensic Audit Reports have neither been specified
                   /listed nor disclosed / provided to the Petitioner despite
                   a specific request.”



4.            Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-

     UCO Bank, on instructions, makes a statement that the Bank is

     in the process of withdrawing the intimation/order dated

     16/03/2026. He also makes a statement that the bank shall

     provide annexures asked for by the Petitioner, which are referred

     to in the above two grounds.



5.            In this background, learned counsel appearing for the

     Respondent No.1/UCO Bank states that the bank is in process of

     withdrawing the communication/order dated 16/03/2026 and

     on instructions he makes further statement that the Petitioner

     shall be provided with the entire Forensic Audit Report including
                                4/4                    904-WP-1801-26.odt

     all the annexures to the said report within a period of two weeks

     from today.


6.            The statement is recorded and accepted. Once the

     documents are provided, the Petitioner is at liberty to give

     comprehensive and extensive reply to the show cause notice, as

     per the guidelines. The Respondent No.1 bank would be at

     liberty to pass a fresh order without prejudice to their rights and

     without prejudice to the facts of the passing of the earlier order.

     All the contentions raised by both the parties on merits of the

     matter are specifically left open.



7.            It is needless to add that once the order dated

     16/03/2026 is withdrawn, the bank shall take all the

     consequential steps in that behalf. But if the criminal proceedings

     are already lodged, then those criminal proceedings shall not be

     interfered with.



8.            The Petition is disposed of.




(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)              (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)