SURINDER SINGH Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to grant the petitioner assistance of lawyer as well as a Chartered Accountant. A prayer for quashment of Annex.-P/8 has also been made in the present writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has availed financial assistance from Bank of Baroda. The Company has not repaid the amount of loan and the Bank of Baroda has prima-facie arrived at a conclusion that the Company has committed an act of diversion and siphoning of funds as defined in Clause 2.2.1 and Clause 2.2.2 of RBI Master circular dated 01/07/2015 on wilful defaulters and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01/09/2017.

(3.) The petitioner instead of submitting a detailed reply to the show cause notice, issued a reply/notice dated 13/09/2017 stating that they should be permitted to represent their case through a lawyer. Their request has been turned down.