SURESH KUMAR PATNI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are erstwhile promoters/directors and guarantors of a company named Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd. which is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process vide order dated February 7, 2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata. Petitioner nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 are erstwhile Independent Directors, petitioner no.6 an erstwhile Executive Director and petitioner nos. 8 to 12 Corporate Guarantors of the company.

(2.) By a letter dated February 28, 2019, show-cause was issued to the petitioners regarding proposed declaration of the petitioners as wilful defaulters under the RBI Master Circular dated July 1, 2015. The petitioners replied to the show-cause notice on June 6, 2019. By way of a letter dated July 10, 2019, the petitioners were informed that the Committee for Identification of Wilful Defaulters (Identification Committee) had classified the petitioners as wilful defaulters on April 19, 2019 and that such decision had been confirmed by a Review Committee. The petitioners, by a letter dated July 23, 2019, refuted the allegations made by the respondents and requested the latter to withdraw and/or cancel and/or revoke the orders of the Committees. The petitioners thereafter moved a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 392 of 2019 before this court, which was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench on August 5, 2019, whereby it was held that there were procedural irregularities in the decision to classify the account as wilful defaulter. The bank was permitted to initiate proceedings under the Master Circular in respect of the subject account in accordance with law and to communicate the decision of the Identification Committee to the persons responsible in accordance with law.

(3.) Subsequently, another show-cause notice dated November 5, 2019 was served on the petitioners, to which the petitioners replied on November 22, 2019. In the said reply, the petitioners denied the allegations made in the notice dated November 5, 2019 and requested the bank to furnish the documents and information, including a copy of the forensic report relied on by both the Committees, to enable the petitioner to give a proper reply. Such documents, however, were not furnished by the bank.