Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. Given the above conspectus of case law, we are of the view that there is no right to be represented by a lawyer in the in­house proceedings contained in Para 3 of the Revised Circular dated 1­7­2015, as it is clear that the events of wilful default as mentioned in Para 2.1.3 would only re­ late to the individual facts of each case. What has typically to be dis­ covered is whether a unit has defaulted in making its payment obligations even when it has the capacity to honour the said obligations; or that it has borrowed funds which are diverted for other purposes, or siphoned off funds so that the funds have not been utilised for the specific purpose for which the finance was made available. Whether a default is intentional, deliberate, and calculated is again a question of fact which the lender may put to the borrower in a show­cause notice to elicit the borrower's submis­ sions on the same. However, we are of the view that Article 19(1)(g) is at­ tracted in the facts of the present case as the moment a person is declared to be a wilful defaulter, the impact on its fundamental right to carry on business is direct and immediate. This is for the reason that no additional facilities can be granted by any bank/financial institutions, and entrepren­ eurs/promoters would be barred from institutional finance for five years. Banks/financial institutions can even change the management of the wil­ ful defaulter, and a promoter/director of a wilful defaulter cannot be made promoter or director of any other borrower company. Equally, under Section 29­A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a wilful de­ faulter cannot even apply to be a resolution applicant. Given these drastic consequences, it is clear that the Revised Circular, being in public interest, must be construed reasonably. This being so, and given the fact that Para 3 of the Master Circular dated 1­7­2013 permitted the borrower to make a representation within 15 days of the preliminary decision of the First Com­ mittee, we are of the view that first and foremost, the Committee compris­ ing of the Executive Director and two other senior officials, being the First C/SCA/6618/2019 JUDGMENT Committee, after following Para 3(b) of the Revised Circular dated 1­7­ 2015, must give its order to the borrower as soon as it is made. The bor­ rower can then represent against such order within a period of 15 days to the Review Committee. Such written representation can be a full represent­ ation on facts and law (if any). The Review Committee must then pass a reasoned order on such representation which must then be served on the borrower. Given the fact that the earlier Master Circular dated 1­7­2013 itself considered such steps to be reasonable, we incorporate all these steps into the Revised Circular dated 1­7­2015. The impugned judgment [SBI v. Jah Developers (P) Ltd., LPA No. 113 of 2015 sub nom Punjab National Bank v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14128 : (2016) 154 DRJ 164] [Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC On­ Line Bom 6075 : (2016) 2 Mah LJ 838] is, therefore, set aside, and the appeals are allowed in terms of our judgment. We thank the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Parag Tripathi, for his valuable assistance to this Court."