SANDEEP JINDAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dtd. 16/2/2021 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 and order dtd. 20/10/2021 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioners have been declared as wilful defaulters, allegedly the same has been done by respondent No.2 and 3 in contravention of the Reserve Bank of India circulars, besides seeking other reliefs.

(2.) In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners being Directors had obtained a loan from Bank of Baroda and on default, OA No. 1627 of 2015 (renumbered as 542 of 2017) titled as 'Bank of Baroda vs. M/s Jindal Medicot Limited, was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal- III, Chandigarh and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 15/11/2017 (Annexure P-8). Subsequently, vide order dtd. 19/11/2020 (Annexure P-10) show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners for declaring them as willful defaulters, petitioners No.5 and 6 sent reply/representation dtd. 2/12/2020 (Annexure P-11) claiming that they were not the Directors/Promoters of the Company at the relevant time when the loan was applied/ availed and nor had signed any loan document. The petitioners were called for personal hearing on 9/2/2021 vide letter dtd. 3/2/2021(Annexure P-12), and the same was received by the petitioners after the date fixed for hearing. However, the petitioners were declared as willfull defaulters vide impugned letter dtd. 16/2/2021 (Annexure P-13). Petitioners No.5 and 6 again filed representation dtd. 18/2/2021 (Annexure P-14) before the Review Committee, however, vide order dtd. 20/10/2021 (Annexure P-16) the respondent No.3- Review Committee had upheld the decision of declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned order dtd. 16/2/2021 (Annexure P-13) and 20/10/2021 (Annexure P-16) passed by the respondent No.2 and 3 are in contravention of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. He submits that the petitioners No. 5 and 6 had submitted reply dtd. 2/12/2020 (Annexure P-11) to the show cause notice (Annexure P-10) dtd. 19/11/2020. Consequent thereto, a letter dtd. 3/2/2021 (Annexure P-12) was issued by the respondents asking the petitioners No.5 and 6 to appear in person on 9/2/2021 at 2:30 pm. However, the said letter dtd. 3/2/2021 was dispatched by the bank on 6/2/2021 and was received by the petitioners after stipulated time had already passed. He contends that the impugned order dtd. 16/2/2021 (Annexure P-13) was passed by respondent No.2 even without considering the representation dtd. 2/12/2020 (Annexure P-11) moved by the petitioner No.5 and 6 and even the representation moved before the Review Committee vide Annexure P-14 dtd. 18/2/2021 was not considered by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order dtd. 20/10/2021 (Annexure P-16). As these orders are silent about the plea raised by the petitioner No.5 and 6 in their response to the show cause notice as well as the representation, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Constitution of India. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers, 2019(6) SCC 787 in this regard and he submitted that as the opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the petitioner No.5 and 6 and the factum of their being neither the promoter-directors at the relevant time nor the signatory to the loan agreement was ever considered by the concerned authorities, as such the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.