TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n between the petitioner company and the respondent bank but the petitioner company failed to comply with the terms of settlement. Therefore, settlement also failed. This writ petition is a pre-mature one. Accordingly this writ petition does not deserve any interference by this Hon ble Court - the present writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. - WP 726 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - Mr Samapti Chatterjee, J. For The Petitioners : Mr. Anirban Ray, Advocate And Ms. Nikita Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For The Respondent Bank : Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Advocate, Mr. Saibal Guha Roy, Advocate And Mr. Somsuvra Mukherjee, Advocate JUDGMENT Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The petitioners case in a nutshell is as follows :- The petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 34/1Q, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700 019. The petitioner nos. 2 and 9 are directors of the petitioner no.1 and are working for gain at 174/C, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata-700007. The majority shareholders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was classified as non-performing assets (NPA) with effect from 5 th March, 2014. It was also contended in the said letter of the respondent no.2 that there was an outstanding liability of ₹ 81,92,37,908 crores as on 14 th July, 2014 with interest. Immediately thereafter the petitioners made representation to the respondent no.2. Since the respondent bank was sitting tight over the matter the petitioner left with no alternative filed a writ petition being no. W.P 29862 (W) of 2014 against the respondent authorities. In the said writ petition on 7 th January, 2015 the Hon ble Court directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition. . While the said writ petition was pending all on a sudden the respondent no.2 issued the impugned letter dated 19 th December, 2014 inter alia calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why their names should not be included in the list of the Reserve Bank of India s Credit Information Companies list of Wilful Defaulter. Thereafter on 4 th June, 2016 after a lapse of one and half years the respondent authorities directed the petitioners to appear i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulation Act ? 2. Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners strongly argued that without following the existing rules the respondent bank vindictively with ulterior motive issued notices dated 19 th December, 2014 as well as on 4 th June, 2016, 20 th June, 2016, and 5 th July 2016; In support of his contention Mr. Ray referred to Paragraph-V of Modifications to Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters which is quoted below :- ( V)-Paragraph-3 on Grievances Redressal Mechanism would now be titled Mechanism for identification of Wilful Defaulters and read as below: The transparent mechanism referred to in Paragraph 2.5 (d) above should generally include the following : ( a) The evidence of wilful default on the part of the borrowing company and its promoter/whole-time director at the relevant time should be examined by a Committee headed by an Executive Director and consisting of two other senior officers of the rank of GM/DGM. ( b) If the Committee concludes that an event of wilful default has o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other two cities. It is also submitted by Mr. Ray that though the respondent bank from time to time asked the petitioners for One Time Settlement by deposit of 25 per cent of the dues. In support of his contention Mr. Ray relied on a decision reported in 2014 (1) CHN (CAL) Page-116 ( Maheshwary Ispat Ltd vs Central Bank of India), an unreported decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court dated April 17, 2018 passed in W.P . ( C ) 3764/2018 CM Nos. 14933-34/2018 paragraphs-5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 9 (Gaurav Dalmia vs Reserve Bank of India Others) and also the decisions reported in 2015 (1) Comp LJ Page-165 (Cal) Paragraphs-47 48 (Kingfisher Airlines Limited And Others vs Union of India And Others) , 2015 (1) Comp LJ Page-197 (Cal) (Santanu Ghosh And Others vs The State Bank Of India And Others) and (2004) 1 SCC Page-547 Para-6 (State of Punjab vs Bhag Singh). 4. Before parting with his argument Mr. Ray emphatically argued that without following the rules and without paying any heed to the petitioners earlier representation against the letter dated 19 th December, 2014 all on a sudden the respondent bank issued the impugned notices dated 4 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehemently argued that the present writ petition is a pre-mature one and therefore should be dismissed directing the petitioners to appear before the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee (WDIC). It is submitted that Master Circular evidence of wilful defaulter have already been furnished to the petitioner therefore, question of violation of natural justice as has been contended by Mr. Ray does not and cannot arise. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee (WDIC) was formed in terms of the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and the said guidelines is also in the public domain. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya further drew the Court s attention Page-222 224 Volume-II of the writ petition. Contents of that is quoted below :- Page-222-As you are aware, the Appropriate Committee of the Bank in terms of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, DBOD No. CID. BC. 57/20.16.003/2014-15 dated 01.07.2014 had approved the proposal for inclusion of the names of M/S Gee Pee Infotech Private Limited (Borrower), Mr. Bijay Kumar Agarwal (Director of GPIPL), Mrs. Kalpana Agarwal (Director of GPIPL). Mr. Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsonal hearing on the above mentioned place, date and time, it will be presumed that you have nothing to submit before the committee by availing personal hearing. 6. This communication is issued as per the approval and directions of the Committee and without any prejudice to our Bank s all rights and contentions. 7. Therefore, in conclusion Mr. Bhattacharya strongly submitted that the Court should dismiss the writ petition on the sole ground of premature and direct the petitioner no.2 to appear in the hearing as all the notices were issued duly following the existing rules and the petitioners were duly supplied with all documents well before the date of hearing. It is reiterated that the petitioner company has defaulted to pay ₹ 81,92,37,908 crores and to avoid such payments filed writ petitions one after the other. Decision with Reasons 8. Considering the rival submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the record as well as the decisions cited above by Mr. Ray I am of the view that the petitioner company has been given notice well in advance to appear in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
