MAHESHWARY ISPAT LTD. Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been branded as wilful defaulters and their names brandished on the CIBIL and other websites without the respondent bank following the procedure under the relevant Reserve Bank of India Master Circular. The petitioners received a notice of 17 January, 2013, informing the petitioners that the bank proposed to place the names of the petitioners on the list of wilful defaulters and advising the petitioners that a representation could be made by them to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the bank. The petitioners issued a reply on 2 February, 2013, questioning the basis of the formation of the initial opinion. Thereafter, the bank gave several opportunities to the petitioners to be represented before the Grievance Redressal Committee which the petitioners did not avail of. The Grievance Redressal Committee, by its order communicated to the petitioners on 27 May, 2013, rejected the petitioners' representation.

(2.) The petitioners refer to clauses 3(i) and 3(ii) of the relevant Master Circular and contend that it would be evident from the minutes of the meeting of the screening committee, held on 8 January, 2013, that there was no decision taken qua the petitioners nor is there any evidence of any decision supported by requisite evidence. The petitioners suggest that in the absence of the initial process being in accordance with the Master Circular, the subsequent steps become irrelevant and the conduct of the petitioners or their failure to attend the hearing afforded by the Grievance Redressal Committee would of no consequence.

(3.) The bank seeks to assert that notwithstanding due receipt of the notice dated 17 January, 2013, the petitioners did not deal with the charges of wilful default levelled, but merely sought to question fee procedure adopted by the bank in forming a preliminary opinion that the petitioners were liable to be classified as wilful defaulters. The bank refers to the petition where there appears to be a tacit admission of money not being paid in time by the petitioners to fee bank.