Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 981 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyAction of RBI in selecting the petitioner as one of the borrowers and issuing instructions to the banks to make a reference under the IBC - whether is arbitrary, unreasonable and falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? - Held that:- This Court is not called upon to evaluate the criteria adopted by the RBI on merits. The scope of judicial review is limited and unless it is established that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious or mala fide, no interference by this Court would be warranted. Clearly, none of the aforesaid grounds are established. The criteria adopted by the RBI is based on expert advice and within the scope of their powers. In view of the above, no interference with the direction of the RBI is warranted. It is also apparent that the criteria adopted by RBI, for selecting the accounts to be referred for resolution under the IBC, is an objective criteria based on rational basis. The petitioner’s contention that inclusion of its name in the second list is arbitrary, is wholly unsustainable. Mr. Vashishth contention that there were several other accounts meeting the same criteria, but had not been included in the list of accounts to be referred under the IBC. This contention is seriously disputed by RBI. However, even if it is accepted that there are other accounts qualifying the criteria as adopted by the RBI but have not been included in the list, no interference in these proceedings would be warranted. Clearly, all accounts cannot be referred to the IBC in one trench, as that would tend to clog the docket of NCLT. The RBI retains full discretion as to which account is to be included in which trench and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the exercise of such discretion. petition dismissed.
|