Delhi High Court - Orders
Adigear International & Ors vs Indian Bank & Anr on 13 April, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4581/2023 and CM APPL. 17432/2023
ADIGEAR INTERNATIONAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah and Mr.
Kumar Kshitij, Advocates.
Versus
INDIAN BANK & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Mr.
Yashu Rustogi and Mr. Vinay S. Bist,
Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 13.04.2023 CM APPL. 17433/2023 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4581/2023 and CM APPL. 17432/2023
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the entire exercise of declaring the petitioner as a Wilful Defaulter is illegal and improper. According to him, neither the provisions of the Master Circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 01.07.2015 have been followed nor the mandate expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers Private Limited and Ors.1 is adhered to.
1(2019) 6 SCC 787 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:19.04.2023 18:04:40 -2-
5. The learned counsel has taken this court through the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Review Committee to indicate that firstly, there was no representation before the Review Committee for the reason that the order passed by the Wilful Defaulter Screening Committee dated 15.07.2022 itself was not served on the petitioner. Secondly, the order is bereft of any reason much less valid reason. According to him, the substantial right of the petitioner to make the representation is adversely affected.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank, on advance notice, strongly opposes the aforesaid submissions and states that the petitioner has not placed on record the relevant documents. According to him, the procedure as contemplated under the Master Circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 01.07.2015 and as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been strictly followed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have taken into consideration submissions made by the petitioner that the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Wilful Defaulter Screening Committee has not been served on him.
8. If the order dated 15.07.2022 which is passed by the Wilful Defaulter Screening Committee is not served on the petitioner, there is no reason for him to make representation before the Review Committee. Accordingly, his right to make representation has been adversely affected.
9. Issue notice.
10. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:19.04.2023 18:04:40 -3- respondent No.1 accepts notice.
11. He is directed to file reply within four weeks.
12. Subject to hearing the respondent, there shall stay on the further operation of the impugned order dated 01.02.2023. The respondent is at liberty to file an application for modification or vacation of the stay order once the reply is filed.
13. List on 12.09.2023.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 13, 2023/p Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:19.04.2023 18:04:40