V. SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Palaniandavan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.L. Ganesh, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent and perused the materials place on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) State Bank of India at its Corporate Accounts Group Branch at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank' for brevity) had extended credit facilities to M/s. Winwind Power Energy Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company' for brevity), which were renewed/enhanced from time to time. Show cause notice dated 03.10.2016 was issued by the Bank to the Company as well as the Petitioner, apart from certain other persons, calling upon them to make submission in writing within 30 days from its receipt as to why their names should not be included in the list of Wilful Defaulters as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in the master Circular DBR. No. CID. BC. 22/20.16.003/2015-16 dated 01.07.2015. The Company through its Advocate has sent replies dated 02.11.2016 and 28.11.2016 to that show cause notice. The Petitioner through the same Advocate submitted an explanation dated 26.10.2016 contending inter alia that he had resigned from the post of Director of the Company on 14.01.2015 and as he was not promotor/borrower/co-borrower/guarantor in respect of the loan availed and is not associated with the Company after 2015, there was no basis for issuance of such show cause notice to him. After the receipt of the aforesaid replies from the Company and the Petitioner, the Bank had issued notices dated 16.08.2017, 01.09.2017, 09.10.2018 and 18.12.2018 to them to avail the opportunity of personal hearing before the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Identification Committee' for brevity) on 28.08.2017, 22.09.2017, 26.10.2018 and 27.12.2018 respectively, but neither the Company nor the Petitioner appeared on any of those hearings. The Identification Committee of the Bank by proceedings dated 27.12.2018 considered the submissions received from the Company through its Advocate and concluded that the name of the Company and the Petitioner as its Director will be included in the list of Wilful Defaulters, which decision was approved by the Review Committee of Wilful Defaulters (hereinafter referred to as the 'Review Committee' for brevity) in the proceedings No. RCWD Minutes/06/2018- 19 dated 12.02.2019 and the same was communicated to the Petitioner by order No. SAMB/CHE/CLO-I/43 dated 10.04.2019, which is challenged by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(3.) It is strenuously urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though the Petitioner had not availed the opportunity of personal hearing before the Identification Committee, the impugned decision of the Identification Committee confirmed by the Review Committee has not considered the specific objections raised by the Petitioner in his reply dated 26.10.2016 sent through his Advocate and that the opportunity of personal hearing had not been given by the Review Committee while approving the decision taken by the Identification Committee. In this regard, strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India Vs. Jah Developers Private Limited [(2019) 6 SCC 787].