(1.) On 30/3/2023, we made the following order in the case of Milind Patel v IDBI Bank Ltd.[2023:BHC-OS:2247-DB : Writ Petition No. 120 of 2023, decided on 30/3/2023. ] That order is reproduced below:
(2.) The present case is identical and indeed relates to the same company, viz., IL&FS Limited ("IFIN"), an entity that is in all manner of difficulties in various forums. The present Petition is not by the company but by an individual who, Mr Bharucha for the 1st Respondent says, was a whole time director and, therefore, knew intimately all the relevant details.
(3.) Mr Bharucha reiterates the submissions that he advanced before us in the Milind Patel case. We have not thought it necessary to address the question of maintainability and we leave that issue open. The view we took on 30/3/2023 in Milind Patel is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers,(2019) 6 SCC 787. Essentially, the requirements of natural justice are to be read into any actions under the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters. This includes not only affording an opportunity of a hearing, and we understand that to mean a meaningful opportunity, but also necessarily a disclosure of the documents relied on by the 1st Respondent-Bank in pursuing the wilful defaulter action under the relevant RBI Master Circular. Here, as in the Milind Patel case, the submission is that the forensic report in question covered a range of issues, some of them sensitive. The 1st Respondent placed reliance on only part of it as against the present Petitioner. As we noted, that is insufficient. The entire document was required to be disclosed. We are also told that there was yet another document namely, 'a memorandum of the dealing group' that was apparently referred to by the 1st Respondent in the course of the show cause proceedings but which does not seem to have been disclosed. Both these would have had to be disclosed as would all other documents on which the bank sought to place reliance.