JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Arjun R. Sheth for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. K.M. Parikh for respondent no.2 and learned advocate Ms. Hiral U. Mehta for respondent no.3

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. K.M. Parikh waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2 and learned advocate Ms. Hiral U. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.3

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 along with letters dated 11.04.2022, 10.05.2021, 19.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 and letter dated 1.06.2022 issued by respondent no.2 identifying the respondent no.3 company and the petitioners as “Willful Defaulter” and further prayed to restrain the respondent no.2 bank from reporting the name of the petitioners to RBI/CIBIL as “Willful Defaulters”.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under :

4.1) The petitioners are the shareholders and the suspended Directors of respondent no.3 company – Care Office Equipment Limited.

4.2) Respondent no. 3 company is a public limited company incorporated in the year 1998 and was engaged into the business of retail trading of electronic appliances having retail outlets across Gujarat. The respondent no.3 company was a distributor for companies like Dell, HP, Asus, etc. for products like laptops, computers, computer accessories, etc.

4.3) Respondent no. 3 is currently under Corporate Insolvency Resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "IB Code") vide admission order dated 29.05.2019 in the matter of Ingram Micro Pvt. Ltd. v. Care Office Equipment Ltd., being Company Petition (Insolvency and Bankruptcy) no. 602 of 2018 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The National Company Law Tribunal appointed Mr. Vikash Jain as the Resolution Professional of the respondent no.3 (here-in-after referred to as “the Corporate Debtor”) vide order dated 27.09.2019 in Interlocutory Application no. 476 of 2019 in CP (IB) no. 602 of 2018.

4.4) The Corporate Debtor had availed certain financial facilities from consortium lenders being the respondent no. 2 bank and Canara Bank in the year 2013 which was again renewed and revived in the year 2017.

4.5) It is the case of the petitioners that during the 8th Committee of Creditors meeting dated 26.02.2020 of the respondent no. 3 Company, it was categorically discussed that based on the Forensic Audit Report there appears to be no preferential transaction (under section 43 of the IB Code), undervalued transaction (under section 45 of the IB Code), extortionate transaction (under section 50 of the IB Code) and fraudulent transaction (under section 66 of the IB Code). Hence, the Committee of Creditors(CoC) based on the Transaction Audit Report had come to the conclusion that there is no fraud discernible by the respondent no. 3 company.

4.6) The petitioners however, received a show cause notice dated 27.02.2020 from the respondent no. 2 (received by the petitioners on 05.03.2020) alleging Willful default by the Corporate Debtors and identifying the petitioners as Willful Defaulter as per the RBI Circular dated 01.07.2015 by placing reliance on Forensic Audit report dated 26.12.2018 by one M/s R.S Patel and Co. It is the case of the petitioners that 8th COC meeting was attended by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager of the respondent no. 2 bank and they after coming to the conclusion that there is no fraud, had issued such frivolous show-cause notice dated 27.02.2020 to pressurize the petitioners to bend to the tunes of the respondent no. 2 bank.

4.7) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 2 had never supplied a copy of the Forensic Audit report dated 26.12.2018 to the petitioners which is against the principles of natural justice as it is a settled principle of law that the evidence relied by the respondent no. 2 m