BHALCHANDRA DINKAR GONDEKAR AND ORS. v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 136 of the Constitution while expressly leaving open the question of law raised by counsel for the petitioners.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-05
Bhalchandra Dinkar Gondekar and others filed special leave petitions against the Reserve Bank of India and others. After hearing senior counsel for the parties and the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court granted permission to file the petitions, dismissed them under Article 136 and kept the question of law raised by the petitioners open.
What happened
The matters were taken up on 13 July 2026 as special leave petitions, including SLP (C) No. 21474/2026, with several interlocutory applications for permission to file petitions, to file additional documents and for exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned judgment. The Court granted permission to file the special leave petitions and heard senior counsel for the parties and the learned Solicitor General.
Questions before the court
- Should the Supreme Court interfere under Article 136 with the impugned orders challenged by the petitioners against the Reserve Bank of India?
Why the court ruled this way
The order gives no reasons beyond recording that the Bench was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order or orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution (paragraph 3).
Controlling point
The special leave petitions were dismissed without a decision on the question of law, which was kept open for consideration in an appropriate case.
Order and next steps
Permission to file the special leave petitions was granted. The special leave petitions were dismissed, but the question of law raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was kept open for being considered in an appropriate case. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Practical implications
A dismissal of a special leave petition with the question of law kept open is not a ruling on the law. Parties in similar matters should not treat it as precedent either way, and should read the impugned judgment for the reasoning.
Limits of this ruling
- The order contains no reasoning on the merits and does not describe the impugned orders; it decides nothing about the legal question that was kept open.
Law and judgment source
- Constitution of India, Article 136
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-05 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–5 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.