Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellant Punjab National Bank (PNB) in LPA No.589/2014 proposed to so classify the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Kingfisher Airlines Limited, United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. and Dr. Vijay Mallya as wilful defaulters and gave an opportunity to the said respondents to represent thereagainst; the respondents, besides representing, sought a hearing. The GRC of the appellant PNB though gave a hearing, as mandated by the Circular aforesaid of the RBI, but during the said hearing objected to the said respondents being represented by a Senior Advocate.

4. This led to the filing by the respondents of W.P.(C) No.5532/2014 from which the LPA No.589/2014 arises. The said writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28th August, 2014 when the counsel for the appellant PNB appeared on advance notice and contended that the GRC of the appellant PNB, which was to give a hearing, comprised of the Executive Director, Chairman-cum-Managing Director and a General Manager of the appellant PNB and none of the said members were Law Graduates and therefore the respondents were not entitled to be represented by an Advocate. It was further submitted that similar notices had been issued to a large number of other borrowers for declaring them also as wilful defaulters and that if the defaulting borrowers are permitted to be represented by an Advocate, the GRC would be severely impeded in disposing of those cases.

(vi) that in cases where adverse decision would have serious civil and pecuniary consequences, denial of representation through a legal practitioner may in given facts be violative of natural justice;

(vii) that indisputably the consequences of holding the respondents / writ petitioners as wilful defaulter would be serious for them and they ought to be afforded adequate opportunity to represent;

(viii) that the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the appellant PNB that the respondents / writ petitioners were seeking to delay the proceedings, could be allayed by fixing timelines.

7. The counsel for the appellant PNB argued, i) that the hearing before the GRC is in the nature of a domestic enquiry and if legal representation is allowed in such enquiries the same would unduly delay the decision on whether the person proposed to be declared as wilful defaulter is to be so declared or not; the delay caused by the respondents / writ petitioners in this case was pointed out; ii) that the Supreme Court even in the context of an opportunity of representation under Sections 13(2), (3) & (3A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) has held that there is no right of hearing; iii) that the petition from which this appeal arises, notwithstanding the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, was filed by way of a wager. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant PNB on the following judgments: