IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Pronounced on: 12.11.2025 SANDEEP JINDAL AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERS Versus BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate for respondent No.1-Bank.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 20.10.2021 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioners have been declared as wilful defaulters, allegedly the same has been done by respondent No.2 and 3 in contravention of the Reserve Bank of India circulars, besides seeking other reliefs.

2. In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners being Directors had obtained a loan from Bank of Baroda and on default, OA No. 1627 of 2015 (renumbered as 542 of 2017) titled as ‘Bank of Baroda vs.

M/s Jindal Medicot Limited, was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal- III, Chandigarh and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P-8). Subsequently, vide order dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure P-10) show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners for declaring them as willful defaulters, petitioners No.5 and 6 sent reply/representation dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure P-11) claiming that they were not the Directors/Promoters of the Company at the relevant time when the loan was applied/ availed and nor had signed any loan document. The petitioners were called for personal hearing on 09.02.2021 vide letter dated 03.02.2021(Annexure P-12), and the same was received by the petitioners after the date fixed for hearing. However, the petitioners were declared as willfull defaulters vide impugned letter dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-13). Petitioners No.5 and 6 again filed representation dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P-14) before the Review Committee, however, vide order dated 20.10.2021 (Annexure P-16) the respondent No.3- Review Committee had upheld the decision of declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. Hence the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-13) and 20.10.2021 (Annexure P-16) passed by the respondent No.2 and 3 are in contravention of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. He submits that the petitioners No. 5 and 6 had submitted reply dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure P- 11) to the show cause notice (Annexure P-10) dated 19.11.2020. Consequent thereto, a letter dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P-12) was issued by the respondents asking the petitioners No.5 and 6 to appear in person on 09.02.2021 at 2:30 pm. However, the said letter dated 03.02.2021 was dispatched by the bank on 06.02.2021 and was received by the petitioners after stipulated time had already passed. He contends that the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-13) was passed by respondent No.2 even without considering the representation dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure P- 11) moved by the petitioner No.5 and 6 and even the representation moved before the Review Committee vide Annexure P-14 dated 18.02.2021 was not considered by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 (Annexure P-16). As these orders are silent about the plea raised by the petitioner No.5 and 6 in their response to the show cause notice as well as the representation, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Constitution of India. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers, 2019(6) SCC 787 in this regard and he submitted that as the opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the petitioner No.5 and 6 and the factum of their being neither the promoter-directors at the relevant time nor the signatory to the loan agreement was ever