MANISH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the action of the respondents of declaring him a wilful defaulter by publication of his name vide public notice dtd. 29/6/2019. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the said action is in violation of guidelines prescribed by Reserve Bank of India on 1/7/2015.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition that in 1995, M/s. Munis Forge Ltd was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in which the petitioner was one of the Directors. The said Company obtained financial assistance from the Central Bank of India (for short, the Bank). The petitioner furnished his personal guarantee for repayment of the credit facility as availed. It is the further case of the petitioner that he resigned as a Director of Company on 14/9/1998 and this fact was informed to the Bank. The Bank found that the Company had failed to maintain its account regularly and hence it declared the Company as a Non Performing Asset (NPA). Recovery proceedings were filed against the Company and its directors before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Though the Tribunal allowed the original application preferred by the Bank on 19/8/2005, the recovery of the entire amount due has not yet been made. The petitioner submits that he had submitted a proposal for discharging his personal liability but the Bank had not accepted such request. On 29/6/2019 a public notice was published in the 'Times of India ' Nagpur edition stating therein that the Company was a wilful defaulter alongwith its directors and guarantors. The name of the petitioner was mentioned as director as well as guarantor. The date of NPA was shown to be 31/3/1998. It is this public notice that has been challenged in this writ petition.