SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Ratul Puri S/o Late Mr. Deepak Puri A-187 New Friends Colony New Delhi 110025 E-mail: Ratul. Puri2020@hpppl. In Also At: H. No. 2 Village Managanj Ward No. 11 Jaithari, Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh-484 330 – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2336 of 2023, CM APPL. 8865 of 2023, CM APPL. 8867 of 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Mr. Akshay Joshi, Mr. Jayant Chawla and Mr. Ekansh Mishra, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Mr. Akshit Kapur, Mr. Harsh Narwal and Mr. Tushar Bagga, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Advocates for R-2.

Compliance with the Master Circular of RBI and legal precedents is necessary in cases of declaring individuals as wilful defaulters.

Headnote:

Wilful Defaulter - Petition under Article 226 - Master Circular of RBI - Bank of India v. Jah Developers Pvt. Limited, 2019(6) SCC 787

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought relief against being declared a wilful defaulter by the State Bank of India (SBI) without being provided with a copy of the reasoned order of the Review Committee, citing violation of the Master Circular of RBI and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India v. Jah Developers Pvt. Limited, 2019(6) SCC 787.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed SBI to supply the copy of the order passed by the Review Committee and take steps for removing the petitioner's name from the list of wilful defaulters. SBI complied with the order and removed the petitioner's name from the website of CIBIL.

Issues: Violation of the Master Circular of RBI and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India v. Jah Developers Pvt. Limited, 2019(6) SCC 787.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that SBI's actions were in violation of the legal provisions and directed SBI to comply with the petitioner's requests, ultimately leading to the removal of the petitioner's name from the list of wilful defaulters.

Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of along with pending applications.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

    "a. Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ! order/direction of like nature directing the Respondent Nos. I and 2 to remove/delete the name of the Petitioner appearing in the list of 'Suit Filed Accounts -Wilful Defaulters Rs.25 lacs and above as on 31-Jan-2023' uploaded on the official website of Respondent No.2;

    b. Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to Respondent No.1 to provide the Petitioner with the order (if any) passed by the Wilful Defaulter Review Committee;

    c. Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to Respondent No.1 to refrain from putting the order (if any) of the Wilful Defaulter Review Committee in public domain for a period of 4 weeks after providing the same to the Petitioner;

    d. Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction of like nature quashing/setting aside the entire action/process/proceedings of Respondent No.1 regarding declaration of Petitioner as a Wilful Defaulter;

    e. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of like nature directing the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to remove all incriminating and false information against the Petitioner from the database of Respondent No.2, which information has been shared at the behest of Respondent No.1 Bank;

    f. Pass an order restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and or/their servants, agents, assignees and officers and/or anyone claiming through or under them from publishing/reporting the name of the Petitioner to the Reserve Bank of India/Respondent No.2 (CIBIL)/newspapers and/or giving any effect in furtherance of the act of Respondent No. 1 unlawfully reporting the name of Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 and publishing the same in the list of 'Suit Filed Accounts-Wilful Defaulters Rs.25 lacs and above as on 31-Jan;-2023' uploaded on the official website of Respondent No.2, in any manner whatsoever."

2. The brief facts of the instant case are that the respondent No.1-State Bank of India (SBI) had reported the name of the petitioner to the Credit Information Bureau of India Limited i.e. TransUnion Cibil Limited (Respondent No.2-CIBIL) as a wilful defaulter; and consequently the petitioner's name appeared on the website of Respondent No.2-CIBIL. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid decision has been taken without providing a copy of the reasoned order of the Review Committee to the petitioner and hence, the respondent No.1-SBI is in gross violation of the mandate of the Master Circular of RBI and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India v. Jah Developers Pvt. Limited, 2019(6) SCC 787.

3. This matter was taken up for hearing on 23.02.2023 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-SBI was directed to apprise the court as to on which date, the order was passed by the Review Committee on the representation submitted by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-SBI, on instructions, submitted that the Review Committee had already decided the representation on 15.11.2022, however, he stated that the copy of the order was to be served on the petitioner. Accordingly, this court directed the respondent No.1-SBI to supply the copy of the order passed by the Review Committee and in the meantime, the respondent No.1-SBI was directed to take steps for removing the name of the petitioner from the concerned list of willful defaulters.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.02.2023, the respondent No.1-SBI was directed to file an affidavit.

6. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 03.03.2023 and the learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1-SBI stated that necessary steps have already been taken. Since, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top