State Bank of India vs Rajesh Agarwal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 277

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Agarwal – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Ms. Nisha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jagrati Bharti, Adv. Ms. Tanya Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Rohan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Ravi Pahwa, Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shravastav, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suraj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Litoriya, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Solanki, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, AOR Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Lalit Rajput, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Vastala Kak, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv. Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Chirag Nayak, Adv. Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Lalit Rajput, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mr. Mahinder Singh Hura, Adv. Mr. Saif Ali, Adv. Mr. Divjot Singh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Adv. Ms. Rusheet Saluja, Adv. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Garvit Thukral, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR M/S. Coac, AOR Ms. Richa Kapoor, AOR Mr. Kunal Anand, Adv. Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Dixit, Adv. Mr. Amresh Bind, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv. Ms. Neetu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Pal, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit K. Nain, AOR Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

A. Background

B. Facts

C. Submissions

D. Analysis

D.1 Regulatory Framework

D.2 Audi Alteram Partem

D.3 No implied exclusion of audi alteram partem

D.4 Challenge to constitutional validity

E. Conclusion

A. Background

1. The civil appeals arise out of a challenge to the Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs) Directions 2016. ¹[“Master Directions on Frauds”] Issued by the Reserve Bank of India²[“RBI”], these directions were challenged before different High Courts primarily on the ground that no opportunity of being heard is envisaged to borrowers before classifying their accounts as fraudulent. The High Court of Telangana has held in the impugned judgment³[Writ Petition No. 19102 of 2019] that the principles of natural justice must be read into the provisions of the Master Directions on Frauds. The decision has been assailed by the RBI and lender banks through these civil appeals.

2. In this background the court has to consider whether

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 277

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLIState Bank of India – AppellantVersusRajesh Agarwal – Respondent

Cases Referred (37)

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Agarwal – Respondent