MILIND PATEL Vs. IDBI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petition is directed against the 1st Respondent, the IDBI Bank Ltd.. We note at the forefront that Mr Bharucha for IDBI Bank raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Petition. In view of the order that we propose to pass, we need not address that, and it is enough to leave contentions open. We say this because Mr Cama for the Petitioner claims there is a complete answer to the question of maintainability.

(2.) The challenge in the Petition is to the declaration by IDBI Bank's Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee ("WDIC") of the Petitioner as a Wilful Defaulter. This declaration was reaffirmed or confirmed by IDBI Bank's Review Committee ("RC"). Both the WDIC and the RC acted, or so they say, in consonance with the applicable master circular, circular or guidelines issued by the 2nd Respondent, the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI").

(3.) The present dispute is not about the guidelines or their applicability. It is about the procedure that is said to have been followed, or more accurately, not followed. For Mr Cama's complaint is that while the show-cause notice issued by the WDIC and the entire hearing proceeded on the basis of a draft forensic audit report by Grant Thornton, only selective portions of this were disclosed to the Petitioner. His complaint is that there is other material in that very draft report which is capable of being used by the Petitioner in answer to the show-cause notice. That opportunity was, in his submission, denied to the Petitioner only because of this selective disclosure.