GOURI PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by a decision of the bank dated March 29, 2019 by which, the petitioner was identified as a wilful defaulter under the provisions of the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated July 31, 2014. The show cause notice was issued by a Deputy General Manager. The show cause notice cannot be construed to be one within the meaning of Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, 2014 prevailing that time. In support of such contention he relies upon the judgement and order dated February 5, 2019 passed on WP No.1399(W) of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Patodia & Ors. versus Union Bank of India & Ors.) and the judgement and order dated May 3, 2019 passed in WP 7471(W) of 2019 (M/s. Atlantic Projects Ltd. & Ors. versus The Allahabad Bank & Ors.).

(3.) Referring to the facts of the present case, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, after receipt of show-cause notice dated July 31, 2014, the petitioner replied thereto on August 14, 2014. The petitioner was sought to be given a personal hearing. The petitioner submitted a further reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner came to learn from a communication dated March 29, 2019 that, the petitioner was included in the list of wilful defaulters in respect of M/s. Consolidated Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. He submits that, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to approach the Review Committee under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, 2014. He relies upon an unreported decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated May 8, 2019 rendered in Civil Appeal No.4776 of 2019 (State Bank of India versus M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) in support of the contention that, the petitioner is entitled to a right of hearing before the Review Committee. The same was denied to the petitioner by the conduct of the bank. Therefore, according to him, the action taken by the bank in classifying the petitioner as a wilful defaulter stands vitiated.