SANTANU GHOSH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners question the propriety of a decision rendered by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent bank while rejecting the petitioners' representation against a preliminary opinion of the bank that the petitioners should be labelled as wilful defaulters under a master circular of the Reserve Bank of India issued on July 1, 2011.

(2.) The reliefs claimed in the petition essentially seek the annulment of the notices issued by the respondent bank on February 7, 2013 and March 4, 2013 informing the petitioners that the names of the petitioners had been included in the list of wilful defaulters and circulated to credit information companies. The notice dated February 7, 2013, in its second paragraph, curtly informed the addressees that the Grievance Redressal Committee of the bank had rejected the appeal carried by the petitioners against the decision of an appropriate committee of the bank to include the names of the petitioners in the list of wilful defaulters maintained by the Reserve Bank of India and by a credit information company. In course of the present proceedings, the petitioners have been furnished a single-page order of the Grievance Redressal Committee passed on December 1, 2012 that does not appear to have been previously communicated to the petitioners. Such decision was rendered on the petitioners' appeal against the bank's proposal to classify the petitioners as wilful defaulters and the discussion and decision are tersely reflected in the following lines:

(3.) Immediately below the above decision there is the signature of the Chief Zonal Manager (SAMG) and at the foot of the page, below the names of the persons who had preferred the appeal, the signatures of the other members of the Grievance Redressal Committee are appended. The petitioners have also been furnished, in course of the present proceedings, a four-page recording of what appears to be the minutes of the proceedings of the Grievance Redressal Committee at its meeting of November 19, 2012. The minutes do not bear any signature and have now been sought to be passed off by the bank as the reasons in support of the rejection of the petitioners' appeal. Only one of those who had complained of the bank's proposal to classify several persons connected with the credit facilities obtained by Global Automobiles Limited as wilful defaulters appears to have succeeded. This petition has been filed by an individual and the three companies whose appeals stood rejected. All the petitioners had guaranteed due repayment of the credit facilities obtained from the bank by Global Automobiles Limited.