Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2020 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (8) TMI 951 - HC - Companies Law


Issues:
1. Petition seeking to quash a communication/notice issued by a bank.
2. Allegations of wilful default against the petitioner by the bank.
3. Legal challenge to the proceedings initiated by the bank.
4. Request for representation through a counsel during the proceedings.
5. Alternate remedy available to challenge the decision of the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee.
6. Appropriate course of action for the petitioner in light of the circumstances.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice issued by the bank regarding wilful default allegations. The petitioner claimed to have resigned as a Director of the Company in question in 2012 and argued that the bank's actions were contrary to RBI Circulars. The petitioner contended that as they were neither a promoter nor a whole-time director at the relevant time, the bank lacked jurisdiction to proceed under the Master Circular. Reference was made to a judgment of a Coordinate Bench in a similar case to support the argument for legal representation during proceedings.

The respondent opposed the petition, highlighting the availability of an alternate remedy to challenge the decision before the Review Committee. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the respondent argued against the petitioner's request for legal representation. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee for a personal hearing, allowing the petitioner to raise all submissions before the Committee. The petitioner was granted liberty to request a short adjournment and file written submissions within two weeks.

Considering the multiple proceedings against the petitioner, the court granted the petitioner the right to file written submissions before the Committee and directed that any order passed by the Committee should not be made public for four weeks. The petitioner was entitled to receive a copy of the reasoned order promptly. The court disposed of the petition with these directions, allowing the petitioner to take further legal steps if unsatisfied with the Committee's decision, without prejudice to the parties' rights and contentions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates