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
(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.
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
Railway Protection Force v. K. RaghuramBabu
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. K. V. Rama Reddy
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
Punjab National Bank and ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Limited and Ors.
Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma
Management Committee, Montfort Senior Secondary School v. Vijay Kumar
Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay v. DilipkumarRaghavendranathNadkarni
J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
C.L. Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs, Cochin
Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana
Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. v. M. Rajan Isaac
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.