GOURI PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has challenged two notices, respectively dated February 26, 2021 and March 2, 2021 both issued under the signature of Deputy General Manager of the State Bank of India (SBI). Both the letters are show-cause notices on similar grounds sent to the petitioner, the first in the capacity of guarantor of Duncans Industries Ltd. and the second in the capacity of Whole-time Director and Promoter (since suspended) of Duncans Industries Ltd.

(2.) The notices have been issued for the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be declared as wilful defaulter on the grounds as mentioned in the said notices. Submissions in writing were also sought in the show-cause notices from the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the first notice dated February 26, 2021, addressed to the petitioner as guarantor of Duncans, was without jurisdiction inasmuch as it fails to satisfy the requirements of Clause 2.6 of the Reserve Bank of India Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated July 1, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the RBI Master Circular"). It is argued that the show-cause notice contained no allegation to the effect that the petitioner, as guarantor, refused to comply with the demands made by the respondent-Bank, despite having sufficient means to do so, which is a pre-requisite for such notice to a guarantor.