The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Petitioners' access to financials and the OBC's justification for not providing a separate copy of the forensic audit report, in the context of the Companies Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J. - The Petitioners claim to be erstwhile directors of M/s J.R. Agro Tech Private Limited (hereinafter, 'company'), in respect of which insolvency proceedings were commenced before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ('NCLT') and an order was passed by the NCLT on 27th July, 2018, appointing a Resolution Professional ('RP') in respect of the said company. Those proceedings are stated to be pending.

2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by two notices, the first being a notice dated 31st January, 2020, informing the Petitioners that the Selection Committee of the Oriental Bank of Commerce ('OBC'), since then merged with the Punjab National Bank (Respondent No. 1), had in its proceedings on 24th July, 2019 decided that the matter pertaining to the declaration of the company's account as 'willful defaulter', in respect of which a show cause notice ('SCN') dated 1st July, 2019 had been issued to the company and the Petitioners, should be placed before the Review Committee of the Board on Willful Defaulters and Non-Cooperative Borrowers for consideration. The letter further states that when the matter was placed before the Review Committee on 17th December, 2019, the Committee decided to give the Petitioners a final opportunity to submit written submissions within 15 days from the date of the letter, before taking a decision in the aforesaid matter.

3. The challenge in the present petition is also to the consequential communication dated 30th March, 2020 of OBC informing the Petitioners, as well as the company and co-guarantor Ms. Sudha Aggarwal, that with no representation having been received from the Petitioners, in response to the notice dated 31st January, 2020, the Review Committee at its meeting on 19th March, 2020 had decided that the company's account be approved for "declaration as willful defaulter".

4. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Aalok Jagga, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on the strength of a judgment dated 14th February, 2017 of a Division bench of this Court in CWP No. 3307 of 2016 (M/s Oswal Apparels Private Limited, Ludhiana v. State Bank of India, Ludhiana), that the OBC had failed to provide the Petitioners with a copy of the Forensic Audit Report on the basis of which the initial SCN was issued to the Petitioners on 1st July, 2019 for declaring the account as 'willful defaulter'. It is further submitted that the stand taken by the OBC in its letter dated 15th July, 2019, in response to the Petitioners' reply dated 9th July, 2019 to the SCN seeking a copy of the aforesaid report, is incorrect for the simple reason that the financial statements, which form the basis of the Forensic Audit Report, were not available with the Petitioners since the NCLT had appointed a RP for the company in question.

5. This Court notes that when the Petitioners first replied to the SCN on 9th July, 2019, the stand taken was that in absence of the forensic audit report, mentioned in the aforesaid SCN, being provided to them, they would neither be in position to reply to queries nor will there be any logic of attending the committee's meeting on 12th July, 2019. The OBC in a response dated 15th July, 2019 to the Petitioner's aforesaid reply, pointed out, while requesting the Petitioners to appear at the committee's meeting scheduled on 24th July, 2019, that the observations made in the forensic audit report were based purely on the financials made available to the Forensic Auditors by the Petitioners. It was accordingly stated that there was no need to provide a copy of the report to the Petitioners.

6. In the further reply dated 22nd July, 2019, the Petitioners virtually repeated verbatim the contents of the earlier letter dated 9th July, 2019. The stand now taken by Mr. Aalok Jagga before the Court is that, in view of the RP being appointed by the NCLT in respect of the company, the Petitioners have no access to their financials. However, this fact does not even find mention in the furth