<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Fraud account classification requires disclosure and written reply, but no automatic personal hearing under natural justice.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98584</link>
    <description>In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Fraud account classification requires disclosure and written reply, but no automatic personal hearing under natural justice.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98584</link>
      <description>In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>