Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ratul Puri vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 25 August, 2022

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~70
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    W.P.(C) 12264/2022 & CM APPLs. 36739-36741/2022
                               RATUL PURI                                      ..... Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr.    Darpan    Wadhwa,       Senior
                                                         Advocate with Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr.
                                                         Ankit Banati and Mr. Shravan
                                                         Niranjan, Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.               ..... Respondents
                                             Through: Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocate for R-1.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                             ORDER

% 25.08.2022

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 13th July, 2022 issued by Identification Committee on Wilful Defaulters [hereinafter, "Identification Committee"] of Respondent No. 1- Punjab National Bank [hereinafter, "Bank"] declaring him to be a wilful defaulter.

2. At the outset, it is noted that Petitioner has approached this Court without availing the remedy of filing a review before the Review Committee. On this aspect, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Counsel for Petitioner, states that jurisdictional objections entitle the Petitioner to impugn the decision even at this stage. He further submits that review would not be an effective remedy as Petitioner has not been provided with the documents on basis whereof the impugned decision has been taken. Since Petitioner was not provided with the said documents, despite several requests, no effective reply could be given to the prior show cause notice.

The Identification Committee also did not consider the above fact and proceeded to declare Petitioner as a wilful defaulter, primarily because he had failed to reply to a show-cause notice dated 10th June, 2020.

3. Mr. Wadhwa further submits that Petitioner, -was a director of Moser Baer Solar Limited ["MBSL"] and had resigned way back in 2012. The Bank has initiated action against him after eight years without any factual finding or basis. Reliance is placed upon orders dated 13th May, 2021 in W.P.(C) 5309/2021 tilted "Shantanu Prakash v. Union Bank of India" and 08th July, 2021 in W.P.(C) 6023/2021 titled "Sanjay Singhal 7 Ors. v. State Bank of India".

4. Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, states that Petitioner was provided with ample opportunities for personal hearing, as admitted in the petition and yet, Petitioner chose not to appear before the Identification Committee. The documents, which were germane, were indeed provided to Petitioner and this fact has also been acknowledged by him. The plea advanced by Mr. Wadhwa is not only contradictory to records, but is also completely meritless.

5. Having heard the counsel for parties, in the opinion of the Court, instant petition cannot be entertained at this stage in light of the fact that Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Review Committee in terms of the mechanism provided under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated 01st July, 2015 bearing RB/2015-16/100 DBR.No.CID.BC22/20.16.003/2015-16 [hereinafter, "Master Circular"]. The Master Circular entails a system of checks and balances and Petitioner should first fully exhaust the remedies prescribed thereunder, before approaching the Court.

6. The plea of non-furnishing of documents can also not be entertained, as this request can easily be made before the Review Committee.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with following directions:

(a) Petitioner, if so advised, can impugn order dated 13th July, 2022 of the Identification Committee before the Review Committee. Since the time limit for the same has already lapsed, Petitioner, if so inclined, must make a representation within a period of ten days from the date of uploading of this order. If review is not preferred within the above timeline, Respondents shall be free to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.

(b) Petitioner, if so advised, shall be entitled to make a request for documents before the Review Committee which shall be considered in accordance with law. Needless to say, while deciding Petitioner's representation, the Review Committee would be guided by the decisions of this Court relied upon by Petitioner (as noted above).

(c) In the event, Review Committee reaches a conclusion which is adverse to Petitioner, the said decision shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days from the date of the order.

8. The present petition is disposed of, along with other pending application(s).

9. It is made clear that the Court has not examined merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 25, 2022/d.negi (corrected and released on 29th August, 2022) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12264/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.08.2022 19:50:33