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 Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (7) TMI 27 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice issued by an unauthorized official.
2. Alleged denial of Natural Justice to the petitioners.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy.
4. Allegations of mala fide and delay in communication of the wilful defaulter declaration.
5. Legality of declaring all petitioners as wilful defaulters when the notice was issued to only some.
6. Adequacy and reasoning of the impugned order declaring the petitioners as wilful defaulters.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners contended that the Show Cause Notice dated April 6, 2019, was issued by an Assistant General Manager of the Bank, who did not qualify to be a member of the WDIC as per Clause 3(a) of the RBI Master Circular. The court noted that the show cause notice was the genesis of the entire chain of events declaring the petitioners to be wilful defaulters and cited the judgment of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, where a notice issued by an unauthorized official was held to be without jurisdiction.

2. Alleged Denial of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that their reply to the Show Cause Notice, dated June 29, 2019, was not considered by the WDIC on the ground of being late, despite being received by the Bank on July 1, 2019. The court found that the WDIC had considered the reply, although it was beyond the stipulated time, and the petitioners had been given ample opportunities, including personal hearings, which they failed to attend.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court addressed the argument that the writ petition was maintainable as there was no equally efficacious alternative remedy. The petitioners contended that the Review Committee could not review the decision due to non-consideration of their representation. However, the court held that the decision of the WDIC could be reviewed by the WDRC, and the petitioners had the right to represent before the Review Committee, making the writ petition premature and not maintainable.

4. Allegations of Mala Fide and Delay in Communication:
The petitioners claimed that the classification as wilful defaulters was mala fide and high-handed, demonstrated by the delay in communication of the order. The court found that the delay was justified due to the pendency of previous litigation and that there was no statutory bar on late communication provided sufficient opportunity was given to the borrower.

5. Legality of Declaring All Petitioners as Wilful Defaulters:
The petitioners argued that since the show cause notice was issued to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 only, the decision declaring all petitioners, including petitioner nos. 3 and 4, as wilful defaulters was illegal. The court held that since notice was served on the petitioner no.1-company, petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were deemed to have received the same as their declaration was due to acts committed as directors of petitioner no. 1.

6. Adequacy and Reasoning of the Impugned Order:
The court found that the declaration of the petitioners as wilful defaulters was backed by sound and feasible reasoning, in line with the RBI guidelines. The grounds stated in the show cause notice were clear and the petitioners had been given several opportunities to present their case. The court held that the impugned order was sufficiently reasoned and justified, and the issues raised by the petitioners were mostly technical and not relevant to the context.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the petitioners to pay costs to the respondents. The petitioners were given liberty to submit a representation to the Wilful Defaulter Review Committee within a specified timeframe, failing which the review committee would proceed without further hearing the petitioners.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates