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

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dipankar Datta, J.
Dynametic Overseas Private Limited
and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
State Bank of India and Ors. —Respondents
W.P.No.3989(W) of 2016 with
W.P.No.3990(W) of 2016
Decided on 15.4.2016

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Satadip Bhattacharya, Mr. L. Vishal Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Mr. Aritra Basu, Ms. Soumosree Chatterjee and Mr. Subhadeep Basak, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Anirban Pramanick and Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Advocates
For the Respondent No.4:Ms. Soni Ojha, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Right of an Advocate to practice is not unrestricted and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Headnote:Advocates Act, 1961—Section 30—Right of representation by Advocate before Identification Committee of SBI—Proceeding of GRC/Identification Committee for inclusion of a defaulting borrower in list of willful defaulters is essentially a fact-finding exercise, followed by an administrative decision—Such proceeding does not assume character of a proceeding before a Tribunal where adjudicator appointed to decide rights of parties has to proceed without bias and predilection and maintain absolute fairness and impartiality—Notwithstanding requirement of master circular regarding requirement of compliance with natural justice, GRC/Identification Committee of lending bank not being authorised to take evidence cannot be said to discharge functions other than administrative—There is no question of holding in favour of representation of petitioners before GRC/Identification Committee by an Advocate—It cannot be gainsaid that right of an Advocate to practice is not unrestricted and is subject to reasonable restrictions—Master circular does not refer to representation by an Advocate—In absence of any such enabling provision, clause (iii) of Section 30 would stand in the way and not permit a representation by an Advocate as of right—Insofar as representation by a Chartered Accountant is concerned, such right of representation is not to be readily inferred—There is no question of petitioners being allowed assistance of a Chartered Accountant—However, Accountant of petitioners or any one directly related to affairs of petitioner no.1 and in its pay roll may be allowed to assist petitioners. (Paras 17, 22, 29, 43, 44 and 46)

       (B) Constitution of India—Articles 226 and 227—Writ petition—When a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, party raising the point must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from writ petition—If such facts are not pleaded or evidence in support of such fact is not annexed to writ petition, Court shall not entertain the point. (Para 38)

       Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

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 a




































































































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 Back to top