Primary sources · Judgment
CH. AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD) Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. & ORS.
Page 1 of 8
$~99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010260092026
% Date of Decision: 12th August, 2026
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1043/2026 & CM APPLs. 38705/2026, 38706/2026
& 38816/2026
CH. AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD)
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Priya Kumar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Mr.
Karishmit Keswani, Ms. Ekaa
Sharma, Mr. R.A. Iyer, Mr. Suraj
Pratap and Mr. Kunal Kohli,
Advocates.
Mob: 9310810018
Email: phalpher@office.com
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Dayan
Krishnan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Dheeraj
Nair, Mr. Akhil Anand, Ms. Vishrutyi
Sahni, Mr. Sahir Seth, Ms. Muskaan
Gupta, Advocates for R-4
Mob: 9650405280
Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate for PNB
Mob: 9811688204
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
1. The present petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings
against the respondent-Punjab National Bank (“PNB”) for wilful
disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 29th May, 2026, passed
by this Court in I.A. 14253/2026 in CS(OS) 303/2026.
2. The order dated 29th May, 2026, reads as under:
Page 2 of 8
“I.A. 14253/2026 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with
Section 151 CPC by D-1 and D-7) & I.A. 13372/2026 (under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by
plaintiff) in CS(OS) 303/2026.
1. List on 09.07.2026.
2. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the banks will comply
with the Minutes of Meetings of Governing Body dated 20th
and 22nd December, 2025 (Page Nos. 87 to 90) of the
documents of the plaintiff in CS(OS) 303/2026.
3. Interim orders, if any, to continue.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. Reading of the aforesaid order dated 29th May, 2026, clearly shows
that there is a direction by the Roster Bench in the suit proceedings that the
respondent-PNB will comply with the Minutes of Meeting (“MoM”) of the
Governing Body dated 20th December, 2025 and 22nd December, 2025.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon
the MoM of the Governing Body dated 20th December, 2025 and 22nd
December, 2025, relevant portion of which, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
Page 3 of 8
xxx xxx xxx”
5. On the basis of the aforesaid MoM, it is the case of the petitioner that
mandate was given to the respondent-PNB, as under:
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was
Page 4 of 8
already a Know Your Customer (“KYC”) form filed before the PNB, the
mandate to the respondent-PNB was very clear in regard to the authorised
signatories as mentioned in the KYC form.
7. She draws the attention of this Court to serial no. 8 in the KYC form,
which is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
8. Thus, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of the
aforesaid MoM, there is a very clear mandate to the respondent-PNB, to the
effect that the signatures on the cheques would be of any of the two
members from Group A, along with one member from Group B, as
mentioned in the Board Resolution dated 22nd December, 2025.
9. Thus, she submits that the order dated 29th May, 2026, is very
categorical to the effect that the PNB had to comply with the MoM of the
Governing Body dated 20th December, 2025, and 22nd December, 2025, and
the mandate thereto.
10. Per contra, it is the case on behalf of respondent no. 4 that the E-mail
dated 1st June, 2026, was written by him for withholding the encashment of
the cheques and any other banking activities, on the basis of order of this
Court dated 29th May, 2026.
11. The said E-mail reads as under:
Page 5 of 8
12. Thus, it is submitted that there was a categorical direction by the
Court vide order dated 29th May, 2026, that only the MoM of the Governing
Page 6 of 8
Body dated 20th December, 2025, and 22nd December, 2025, had to be
followed by the respondent-PNB, which are very clear to the effect that the
cheques had to be signed by three authorised representatives, i.e., Sh.
Hemant Batra, Sh. Jai Batra, and Sh. Sushil Kumar Batra.
13. This Court notes that the order dated 29th May, 2026, is being
interpreted by both the parties in a divergent and conflicted manner.
14. The case of the petitioner is that vide the said Court order, the
respondent-PNB had to carry out the mandate given to them as per the MoM
of the Governing Body dated 20th December, 2025, and 22nd May, 2025.
15. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent no. 4-Mr. Jai Batra that
the mandate as given in the said MoM, does not make any reference to the
requirement of signatures by any authorised members, whose names have
been recorded in either Group A or Group B.
16. This Court is informed that the applications with regard to the
injunction as well as the interpretation of the order dated 29th May, 2026, is
pending adjudication before the Roster Bench.
17. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the respondent-PNB, in receipt of letters from both the sides, cannot be
faulted for its action.
18. This Court takes note of the fact that while the actual interpretation of
the order dated 29th May, 2026, and the resultant mandate of the respondent-
PNB is still pending adjudication before the Roster Bench, no culpability
can be attributed to the respondent-PNB, in the manner in which it acted.
19. This Court further notes the fact that while the said MoM between the
parties stipulated that the requisite authorised signatures would be of three
representatives, namely, Sh. Hemant Batra, Sh. Jai Batra, and Sh. Sushil
Kumar Batra, however, the KYC form does not mention any such term.
Page 7 of 8
20. Since there is a dispute between the parties as regards the authorised
signatory, and that the matter still being pending adjudication before the
Roster Bench, this Court is of the view that the final order passed by the
Roster Bench needs to be awaited in this regard.
21. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 10th
June, 2026, passed by the Vacation Bench, which reads as under:
22. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that on the basis of the order
Page 8 of 8
dated 29th May, 2026, passed by the Roster Bench, the Vacation Bench had
directed that the respondent-PNB shall resume the normal banking
operations, and honour all cheques/payment instruments of the petitioner-
hospital strictly in terms of the Resolution dated 22nd December, 2025.
23. There was a further direction that the existing operational mandate,
i.e., any two signatories from Group A together with the mandatory
signature of the Finance Controller from Group B, shall continue.
24. At this stage, this Court notes the submission made by learned Senior
Counsels appearing for respondent no. 4 that the Vacation Bench vide order
dated 10th June, 2026, could not have passed any directions above and
beyond the directions passed by the Roster Bench vide order dated 29th May,
2026.
25. However, since the interpretation of the directions of the Court issued
vide order dated 29th May, 2025, is still pending adjudication before the
Roster Bench, it is directed that the plea regarding the conundrum, i.e.,
whether the interpretation/direction by the Vacation Bench vide order dated
10th June, 2026, was in line with what the Roster Bench had intended, shall
also be raised before the Roster Bench.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
27. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
28. Needless to state, with the disposal of the present petition, all the
interim directions stand merged with this final order passed by this Court.
29. The next date of 11th September, 2026, stands cancelled.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
AUGUST 12, 2026
ak