THAMANIAN AGRO FOODS Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had availed the loan facilities from the third respondent for commercial purposes and in view of the default committed by him, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, as well as under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that for inclusion of the name of the petitioner Concern in the list of wilful defaulters, show-cause notice was issued on 12.11.2019 and on account of onset Covid -19 Pandemic Virus, he was not able to appear in person and without granting him fair and sufficient opportunity, by means of a cryptic order, has rejected his reply and thereby, included his name as a wilful defaulter. Therefore, challenge is made to the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 14.08.2020.

(3.) Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, would submit that in the light of the Master Circular of the first respondent dated 02.07.2007, the decision taken by the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee would be automatically placed before the Wilful Defaulter Review Committee, where based on assessment of materials, the Wilful Defaulter Review Committee will pass appropriate order either to confirm the order of the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee or to modify the same and further points out that even in the impugned communication, the petitioner is provided with an alternate remedy to make a representation against the order of the Wilful Defaulter Identification committee before the Wilful Defaulter Review Committee and in the light of the same, this writ petition is not maintainable.