Ankit Tayal & Anr. vs. Punjab And Sind Bank & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, a director and a shareholder of Cemcon Engineering Company India Pvt. Limited (the Company), filed a writ petition seeking directions to Punjab and Sind Bank (respondent no.1) to restore the net banking facility of the Company. The facility was suspended based on a complaint by respondent no.3, Mr. Ghanshyam Tayal, who is in dispute with the petitioners regarding the Company's management. The dispute is currently before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in CP-213/2023. The petitioners argued the bank was not justified in suspending the facility, a position disputed by respondent no.3. During the hearing, the parties reached a limited arrangement to ensure statutory liabilities are met and financial transactions are smooth.
Held
The Court did not decide the issue of whether the respondent bank was within its rights to suspend the net banking facility. Instead, the parties, without prejudice to their respective rights and contentions, arrived at a limited arrangement to ensure the discharge of statutory liabilities and smooth financial transactions for the Company. This arrangement includes specific procedures for paying GST and Advance Tax, requiring joint signatures on cheques and cooperation with the Chartered Accountant. It also involves a joint request to the bank to open a Cash Credit Limit account. The parties undertook to abide by this arrangement, and their statements were taken on record. The Court also noted the parties' intention to jointly request the NCLT to expedite the disposal of the pending petition. The petition was disposed of in terms of this arrangement.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent bank was within its rights to suspend the net banking facility of the Company, considering the ongoing dispute regarding its management before the NCLT? Petitioner's Contention: The respondent bank was not justified in suspending the net banking facility of the Company. No specific provision of law or precedent was cited in support of this contention. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondent no.3 disputed the petitioners' position regarding the bank's right to suspend the net banking facility. No specific provision of law or precedent was cited in support of this contention.
Sections Cited
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 08.07.2025 CM APPL. No. 39006/2025 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 9191/2025 & CM. APPL. No. 39005/2025
The present petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent no.1/Punjab & Sind Bank to restore the net banking facility of respondent no.4 i.e. Cemcon Engineering Company India Pvt. Limited [hereafter the ‘Company’].
Petitioner no.1 is director of the Company, while petitioner no.2 is a longstanding shareholder therein. Petitioner no.2 is stated to be the father of petitioner no. 1 and brother of respondent no.3. 5. It is stated that the respondent no.4 company has been managed and controlled by the Tayal family. However, in 2023 respondent no.3 filed a company petition being CP-213/2023 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) wherein dispute has been raised with regard to control of the management of the Company. It is submitted that petitioner no.2 was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 13:37:43
inducted as a director in an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting of the company held in November, 2023 which is also a matter of controversy in the aforesaid petition before the NCLT.
It appears that the respondent no.1 bank has stopped the net banking facility of the Company on a complaint/request made by the respondent no.3, Mr. Ghanshyam Tayal.
Mr. Ankit Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondent bank was not within its rights to suspend the net banking facility of the Company, which position is disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. 8. Be that as it may, without prejudice to their respective rights and contentions, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.3, during the course of hearing have arrived at following limited arrangement to ensure discharge of statutory liabilities and smooth financial transactions on behalf of the Company: A. GST to be paid. (i) Petitioner No. 1 shall send cheques for signing to Respondent No.3 with GST Challans, with same cheque value. Signed cheque by both Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 shall be given to the Chartered Accountant (CA) of the Company (Respondent No.4), who will deposit the same with the GST authority. (ii) Cheques will be signed by Respondent No.3 within 5 days of receiving the same from Petitioner No.
B. Advance Tax to be paid. (i) Petitioner No.1 to send cheques for signing to Respondent No.
The Respondent No.3 after verification from the Chartered Accountant, will hand over signed Cheque (by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 13:37:43
both Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3) to the Chartered Accountant (CA) of the Company (Respondent 4). The Accountant shall make best endeavour to pay the Advance Tax without uploading MGT-7 or MGT-7A. However, if filing of MGT7 and MGT 7A is a mandatory requirement to file Advance Tax, then CA will upload MGT-7 and MGT-7A with the current shareholding as reflected in Registrar of Companies. (ii) This uploading of MGT 7 and MGT 7A with the current shareholding as reflected in Registrar of Companies, will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the directors and shareholders of the Respondent No.4/Company, and shall be subject to the final determination by NCLT. (iii) Cheques will be signed within 5 days from the date of receipt by the Respondent No.3 from Petitioner No.
C. Cash Credit Limit to be opened. (i) Both parties will jointly request the Bank to open the Cash Credit Limit account of the Respondent No.4/Company and all parties shall cooperate with each other in this regard.
The learned counsel for parties submit that the parties undertake to abide by the aforesaid arrangement. Their statement is taken on record. The parties shall remain bound by the same.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as, respondent no.3 also submit that they will make a joint request before the learned NCLT for expediting the disposal of aforesaid petition.
Before parting, the Court also wishes to place on record the laudable efforts of Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned senior counsel who has mediated between the parties at the request of this Court, enabling them to arrive at This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 13:37:43
the above stated arrangement.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JULY 8, 2025/SV This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 13:37:43
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.