Calcutta High Court
Allied Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 10 March, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 125 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ALLIED VYAPAR PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 10th March, 2017.
Mr. Nimish Mishra, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Advs.
...for the petitioners Mr. Sounak Sengupta, Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Advs.
...for SBI The Court : The petitioner assails a show cause notice dated June 16, 2016 issued by the bank proposing to classify the petitioner as a wilful defaulter. The petitioner also assails a notice of personal hearing dated February 21, 2017 issued by the bank.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner wanted documents to be supplied by the bank. Instead of supplying such documents, the bank has sought to proceed with the show cause notice dated June 16, 2016. The documents asked for not being provided, the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard 2 by the bank. Although the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, in absence of the documents sought for, the petitioner was handicapped in putting forward his defence to the show cause notice. So far as the notice dated February 21, 2017 is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the bank has allowed a personal hearing. It has denied the petitioner the right to be accompanied by an advocate or a chartered accountant. The petitioner had visited the bank premises on the appointed date along with an advocate and a chartered accountant as the petitioner is not in a position to face the experts of the bank. The bank had refused the petitioner's entry into the meeting on the ground that the petitioner is accompanied by persons who were barred by the letter dated February 21, 2017. He submits that, the petitioner is entitled to engage an advocate and a chartered accountant at the hearing of the Wilful Defaulter Committee. He relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of Delhi reported in 2016 (154) Debts Recovery Journal 164 (Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & Ors.). He submits that, an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to make its representation to the bank after the bank makes over the documents sought for by the petitioner and the bank should consider the case of the petitioner in the presence of an advocate and a chartered accountant engaged by the petitioner. 3
Learned advocate for the bank submits that the issue as to whether a person proposed to be declared as a wilful defaulter is entitled to be accompanied by an advocate and a chartered accountant to a hearing before the Wilful Defaulter Committee was decided by a coordinate Bench in W.P. 3989(W) of 2016 (Dynametic Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.) by judgement and order dated April 15, 2016. He refers to another judgement and order of the Division Bench rendered in AST No. 320 of 2014 (Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.) dated August 28, 2014 in support of his contention that, the petitioner is not entitled to be accompanied by an advocate and a chartered accountant.
Learned advocate for the petitioner in reply relies upon orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the appeal preferred against Dynametic Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He submits that there is a stay of such judgement. He further submits that Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (supra) was considered in Dynametic Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The Delhi High Court in Punjab National Bank (supra) has taken a view contrary to that of the Calcutta and Bombay. It is of the view that a defaulter is entitled to be accompanied by an advocate in the 4 hearing before the Defaulter Committee. Punjab National Bank (supra) was considered in Dynametic Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Although there is an appeal pending, the judgement has not been reversed. In such circumstances, following Dynametic Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra) I find no illegality or infirmity in the notice dated February 21, 2017.
So far as the request for documents is concerned, it appears that the initial notice is dated June 16, 2016. The request for documents was made on July 18, 2016. Nothing has been placed before me to suggest that, the petitioners had applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the documents concerned. Learned advocate for the petitioners refers to the Master Circular on wilful defaulter dated July 1, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. He contends that the Master Circular requires the wilful defaulter to be made over the documents required.
The Master Circular requires the evidence of wilful defaulter to be placed before the Committee. The petitioner has to appear before the Committee to be entitled to the evidence that is led for the purpose of declaring the petitioners as a wilful defaulter. It is not the case that the petitioners were not given the evidence placed before the Committee in spite of the request being made for such purpose. 5
In such circumstances, I find such contention on behalf of the petitioner to be unacceptable. W.P. No. 125 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) TR/