MOSER BAER INDIA LTD Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions have been taken up for analogous hearing as they involve similar issues. Both the writ petitioners have challenged a decision of the Review Committee established under the provisions of the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Company enjoying the credit facilities from UCO Bank has filed W.P. No. 381 of 2018. For the sake of convenience it is referred to as the first writ petition. The guarantors of such credit facilities have filed W.P. No. 401 of 2018. For the sake of convenience it is referred to as the second writ petition.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the first writ petition has submitted that, the Company enjoyed credit facilities from UCO Bank. The Company faced proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. In such proceedings, initially, a resolution professional was appointed by NCLT, New Delhi by its Order dated November 14, 2017. Subsequently, a liquidator has been appointed in respect of the affairs of the Company.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the first writ petition has referred to the provisions of the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters of Reserve Bank of India dated July 1, 2015. He has submitted that, the Company was not given any opportunity of hearing either by the Identification Committee or by the Review Committee. He has relied upon the judgment and order dated November 5, 2019 passed in W.P. No. 1399 (W) of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Patodia & Ors. vs. Union Bank of India & Ors, .), (Atlantic Projects Ltd. & Ors. vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors,2019 SCCOnlineCal 611.) and the judgment and order dated May 8, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 476 of 2019 (State Bank of India vs. M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) in support of his contentions that, a notice of hearing by the Review Committee to the petitioner is mandatory. Since no notice was given, the impugned decision of the Identification Committee is bad in law. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Review Committee and submitted that, the decision itself, is uninformed with reasons. The order of the Review Committee merely reiterates what the Identification Committee allegedly held. Application of mind of the Review Committee is not apparent from the Order Sheet of the Review Committee. Therefore, according to him, the Order of the Review Committee should be quashed.