KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges a declaration of willful defaulter made by United Bank of India against the writ petitioners by an order of the Grievance Redressal Committee of United Bank of India dated 1 September, 2014 [GRC]. The writ petitioners also seek declaration that the Reserve Bank of India Masters Circular regarding wilful defaulters be declared invalid and ultra vires. Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners, submits on instructions that the writ petitioners do not wish to proceed against the respondent No. 1 and seek deletion of respondent No. 1 as second party respondent. On such prayer the respondent No. 1 is deleted as a party respondent from the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Sarkar refers to the judgment and order dated 10 July, 2014, passed in WP No. 19247(W) of 2014 [Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, 2015 1 CompLJ 160] and submits that the court on the earlier writ petition of the writ petitioners regarding declaration of the writ petitioners as willful defaulters gave few directions. According to him, one of the directions was that the date of hearing be fixed with 72 hours advanced notice. He submits that, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal which was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 28 August, 2014 judgment and order dated 10 July, 2014, passed in WP No. 19247(W) of 2014 [see Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, 2015 1 CompLJ 160]. The appeal was confined to a point as to whether the writ petitioners will be entitled to be represented by an advocate at the hearing of the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) or not. Such question was answered in the negative and the appeal was dismissed. His clients moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition which, according to the writ petitioners, was made infructuous by the respondent authorities. Such special leave petition was found to be infructuous in view of the order passed by the GRC on 1 September, 2014. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 2 September, 2014.

(3.) Mr. Sarkar seeks interim protection pending adjudication of the writ petition. He submits that the bank acted in breach of the principles of natural justice. He submits that his clients were not afforded 72 hours notice in terms of the order dated 10 July, 2014 [Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, 2015 1 CompLJ 160]. He refers to the notice sent by electronic media dated 29 August, 2014. He submits that the electronic mail was sent at 11.01 am to an officer of the petitioner No. 1. The third electronic mail enclosed a notice dated 29 August, 2014, addressed to the petitioner No. 1, at Bangalore. The notice dated 28 August, 2014, required the writ petitioners to be present at Kolkata on 1 September, 2014, at 10.30 a.m. He submits that on the face of the notice dated 29 August, 2014, a time of 72 hours directed by the order dated 10 July, 2014, was not complied with.