Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
State Bank Of India vs M/S. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 8 May, 2019
12. Placing reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4776 of 2019 (State
Bank of India v. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd.), decided on
8-5-2019, Mr. Dhond would submit that this circular
contemplates a speaking order being passed. The impugned
decision fails to satisfy that test for the simple reason that it is
unreasoned. First of all, its title reads "Without Prejudice". The
prejudice and bias is writ large on it. It includes the name of the
Company and its Promoter-Director, Mr. Nitin Shah and Whole-
time Directors Mr. Rahul Shah and Mr. Kunal Shah in the list of
wilful defaulters. Mr. Dhond would submit that this decision has
been reached without even bothering to deal with the
Page 14 of 40
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 20:22:03 :::
suresh 914-WPOJ-1825.2019.doc
submissions and explanation placed on record. Mr. Dhond has,
for instance, taken us through the annexures to this petition to
urge that there are no reasons in the impugned order but one
can turn to the allegations in the Show Cause Notice to
appreciate the stand of the petitioners before us. The petitioners
do not admit the allegations. They gave an explanation to the
same in writing which is both bona fide and reasonable. Now,
the Show Cause Notice is founded on the FAR. However, the
first respondent itself terms this a draft FAR. If indeed it was a
draft, then, no recommendation much less an opinion therein
can be said to be conclusive. In fact the joint lenders and the
petitioners do not admit this to be a final report.
Section 10 in The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
1