MVMIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED v. IDBIBANK LIMITED

Delhi High Court · 19 Dec 2018
Vibhu Bakhru
W.P.(CI) 13649/2018
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the bank's declaration of the petitioners as wilful defaulters, holding that procedural fairness was observed despite petitioners' non-response and non-availing of hearing.

Full Text
Translation output
ll \ $-3&4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CI 13649/2018 and CM Nos.53205/2018 & 53206/2018
MVMIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr Yogesh Kotle,Advocate,
VERSUS
IDBIBANK LIMITED Respondent
Through: Mr SidharthaBarua and Mr Aditya Gupta,Advocates.
AND
W.P.(CI 13655/2018 and CM Nos.53216/2018 & 53217/2018
SfflLPI COMMUNICATION PVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr Yogesh Kotle,Advocate,
VERSUS
IDBIBANK LIMITED Respondent
Through: Mr Sidhartha Barua and Mr Aditya Gupta,Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
19.12.2018
ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions impugning communications dated 06.08.2018 and 11.10.2018 issued by the respondent bank.

2. By the communication dated 06.08.2018, the respondent bank has communicated its decision to declare the petitioners as wilful defaulters in accordance with the RBI Circular. The petitioners alleged that they had no opportunity to meetthe allegations againstthem. It is also submitted that no hearing was afforded to the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also earnestly 2018:DHC:8633 contended thatthe documents relied upon by the respondent bank to hold the petitioners as wilful defaulters were also notfurnished to the petitioners.

4. The aforesaid contentions are unpersuasive. The petitioners were issued a show cause notice dated 15.01.2018 and called upon to show cause why they should not be declared as wilful defaulters. A copy ofthe show cause notice has been placed on record. Admittedly,the petitioners did not file any response to the said show cause notice. The petitioners also did not requestfor the documents relied upon by the respondent bank.

5. By a letter dated 10.04.2018, the respondent bank also afforded the petitioners opportunity of personal hearing. This opportunity was also not availed ofby the petitioners.

6. In view ofthe above,this Court finds no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent bank.

7. The petitions are,accordingly,dismissed.All pending applications are also disposed of. VIBHUBAKHRU,J DECEMBER 19,2018 RK