The petitioners, a private limited company and its principal officer, were not entitled to be represented by advocates/chartered accountants before the Identification Committee of the SBI, as the master circular of the RBI did not envisage such representation and the petitioners could not claim any right to be represented by advocates/chartered accountants in a proceeding before the GRC or the Identification Committee.

Dipankar Datta, J.

In view of the common issues involved in these two writ petitions, the same have been heard together. This Bench proposes to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.

2. The case pleaded in W.P. 3989(W) of 2016 may be noted. The petitioner no. 1 is a private limited company while the petitioner no. 2 is one of its principal officers. The petitioner no. 1 was previously known as R. Piyarelall International Private Limited (hereafter Piyarelall). Since 2004, Piyarelall was availing credit facilities from the State Bank of India, respondent no. 1 (hereafter the SBI). Owing to defaults committed by the SBI, Piyarelall suffered loss and damages whereby its business was permanently impaired. A civil suit was instituted by Piyarelall claiming diverse relief. As a retaliatory measure, the SBI issued a notice dated November 27, 2014 threatening to include the name of Piyarelall in the list of wilful defaulters as provided for by the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter the RBI) in a document captioned “Master Circular for Wilful Defaulters” (hereafter the master circular). The said notice purported to convey to Piyarelall that if it had any grievance against the decision of the SBI i.e. the proposal to include the names of Piyarelall, its directors and corporate guarantors in the list of wilful defaulters, it may send a representation or appeal in writing within a period of 15 days from date to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the SBI (hereafter the GRC) at the Corporate Centre, Mumbai. It was also informed that if it so desires, it may request for a personal hearing before the GRC. Piyarelall perceived that prior to determination and/or decision to include its name in the list of wilful defaulters it had a right to be heard in compliance with the principles of natural justice. It also perceived that it had a right to receive the decision of the SBI, meaning thereby the reasons for which it was proposed to classify it as a wilful defaulter. By a letter dated December 9, 2014, Piyarelall called upon the SBI to make over a copy of the proposal together with the reasons in support thereof. Since no positive decision was received from the SBI, Piyarelall invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by presenting W.P. 105 of 2015 seeking, inter alia, orders on the SBI to withdraw the impugned notice dated November 27, 2014 and to refrain from proceeding further against Piyarelall on the basis of such notice. A coordinate Bench that considered the writ petition disposed it of by an order dated February 17, 2015. Such order reads as follows:

“The Court: This writ challenges a document dated 27th November, 2014. According to Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioners it is a decision declaring them as willful defaulters, without following the correct procedure. According to the bank represented by Mr. Saha, learned advocate it is just a show cause notice.

The submission of Mr. Saha is accepted. The document dated 27th November, 2014 will be taken as a show cause notice. Any alleged decision contained therein will also be taken as an allegation or charge against the petitioners. The petitioners will be at liberty to submit a written defence to this show cause notice, if not already filed and also an additional defence within three weeks from date. The writ petitioners will also be entitled to ask for all documents and details of all facts pleaded in the show cause notice within two weeks from date, which will be provided by the bank within two weeks thereafter.

The adjudication should be made following the norms mentioned in clause 3 especially clause 3(i) of the Master Circular on willful defaulters published by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner should be given a hearing and the decision should be a reasoned one to be made and communicated to the parties.

The interim order dated 5th February, 2015 is hereby vacated.

As no affidavit in opposition has been filed allegations, if any, cont