Bombay High Court
MARKAND NAVNITLAL ADHIKARIversusCANARA BANK LTD.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioners must seek relief from the RBI Review Committee and the bank must refrain from reporting the wilful defaulter status or taking adverse action until the Review Committee’s order.
Summary
The petitioners, Markand Navnitlal Adhikari and Krishna Showbiz Services Pvt Ltd, challenged an order dated 10 September 2024 of Canara Bank’s Identification Committee that classified them as ‘wilful defaulters’. They argued that the bank’s failure to furnish the committee’s order to them violated Supreme Court precedent in State Bank of India v. M/s Jah Developers. The High Court, recalling its own interim order of 9 October 2024, directed the petitioners to approach the RBI‑constituted Review Committee under the Master Circular for redress. The Court ordered the bank to refrain from reporting the wilful defaulter status to credit bureaus and from taking adverse action until the Review Committee’s decision. It also mandated that the Review Committee grant a personal hearing, issue a reasoned order within eight weeks, and stay any adverse order for two weeks. The Court clarified that it did not adjudicate the merits, leaving the substantive issues to the Review Committee, and disposed of the writ petitions without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑disclosure of the Identification Committee’s order to the petitioners violates Supreme Court law.
- Whether the bank may continue to report the ‘wilful defaulter’ classification to credit information companies pending review.
- Whether the petitioners should approach the RBI Review Committee for redress under the Master Circular.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- wilful defaulter
- identification committee
- review committee
- RBI Master Circular
- interim relief
- credit information companies
- Article 226
- writ petition
- banking law
Judgment
Digitally signed
903-WP-4881-2024.DOC
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.07.06
15:49:00
+0530
Chitra Sonawane.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4881 OF 2024
Markand Navnitlal Adhikari …Petitioner.
Versus
Canara Bank Limited & Anr. …Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5158 of 2024
Krishna Showbiz Services Private Limited & Anr. .....Petitioners.
Versus
Canara Bank Ltd Arm Branch-I, Mumbai & Anr. .....Respondents
Mr Ashish S. Kamat, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr Ansh Agal &
Ms Aditi Pareek, i/by Jain Law Partners LLP for Petitioners.
Mr Rishab Shah, a/w Mr Gajendra A. Rajput for Canara Bank.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 2nd JULY 2026.
Order (Per Advait M. Sethna):-
1. These Petitions involving similar issues/reliefs, at the request
of parties, are disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The Petitions are filed primarily assailing the Order dated
10th September 2024, passed by the Identification Committee of
Page 1 of 4
903-WP-4881-2024.DOC
Respondent No.1/Bank, declaring the Petitioners as a ‘Wilful
Defaulter’ (‘Impugned Order’ for short).
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of
the parties.
5. At the outset, Mr. Ashish Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioners would invite the attention of this Court to an Order
dated 9th October 2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the present proceedings. Vide such Order, this Court was
of a prima facie view that non-furnishing of the Order of the
Identification Committee to the Petitioner, is contrary to the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. M/s Jah
Developers Pvt Ltd1.
6. Mr Kamat would further submit that by the Order of 9 th
October 2024 (supra), this Court, by way of ad-interim relief
directed that the Respondent No.1/Bank shall not act in
furtherance of Impugned Order dated 10th September 2024 passed
by the Identification Committee. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1/Bank does not dispute the above.
7. In the aforementioned backdrop, the parties are now at ad
idem to approach the Review Committee to redress its grievances
as envisaged under the Master Circular of the RBI-the second
Respondent.
1 (2019)6 SCC 787.
Page 2 of 4
903-WP-4881-2024.DOC
8. Considering the above, the following order, in our opinion
shall meet the ends of justice :-
ORDER
(a) The Petitioners shall approach the Review Committee
constituted under the Master Circular of the RBI-the
second Respondent. They would furnish their
representations in writing along with the supporting
material on the issue of declaration of the Petitioners as a
‘Wilful Defaulter’.
(b) The Review Committee shall afford an opportunity of
personal hearing to the Petitioners. Thereafter, a reasoned
Order will be passed which will be communicated to the
parties by the said Review Committee.
(c) The Review Committee shall complete the above
exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the
period of eight weeks from the date of the Petitioners
approaching the Review Committee, as noted (supra).
(d) Until such Order is passed by the Review Committee
of the Canara Bank-the First Respondent shall not report
the classification of the Petitioners as ‘Wilful Defaulter’
based on the Impugned Order of the Identification
Committee dated 10th September 2024, to the credit
information companies, including CIBIL, or other credit
registries and to also refrain from taking any precipitative
adverse action, in the interregnum, against the Petitioners.
Page 3 of 4
903-WP-4881-2024.DOC
(e) In the event the Review Committee decides against the
Petitioners, it shall be open to the Petitioners to adopt such
appropriate legal remedies as available in law. To facilitate
such course, this Court, in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
deems it fit and proper to direct that such adverse Order, if
any, of the Reveiw Committee, shall not be acted upon for
a period of two weeks from the date of such Order.
(f) It is clarified that we have not delved into the merits
of the rival contentions, which are left open for the parties
to be urged before Review Committee, to be decided on its
own merits and in accordance with law.
(g) For the above reasons, the ad-interim order of this
Court dated 9th October 2024, stands modified accordingly.
9. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order
as to costs.
10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.