Gaurav Dalmia v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors

1. Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions. W.P.rCI 10166/2018 W.P.tCI 10206/2018 2018:DHC:8646

2. The petitioners have filed these petitions, inter aliai impugning notices dated 10.07.2018 (hereafter 'the impugned notices') issued by respondent no.3 (Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India), whereby the petitioners have been called upon to respond within a period of 15 days as to why the report ofthe default committed be not communicated to the credit information companies (CICs) for further Action. The impugned notices read as ifa decision has already been taken to declare the petitioners as wilful defaulters; however,the learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that the said notices are to be treated as show cause notices and not as orders holding the petitioners as wilful defaulters. In this view,the petitioners have full opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the impugned notices.

3. The impugned notices clearly indicate that the allegations against the petitioners are (a) that M/s Pro Minerals Private Limited had failed to discharge its repayment obligations despite having capacity to do so;(b)that M/s Pro Minerals Private Limited/its directors had availed ofloans but have ^ >« diverted the funds other than the purposes for which the loan had been undertaken; and (c) that the funds had been siphoned off from the said company(M/sPro Minerals Private Limited).

4. The petitioners have already responded to the aforesaid allegations and have now been called for an oral hearing.

5. In view ofthe statement oflearned counsel for responderit nos.[2] and 3 banks that the impugned notices are in the nature ofshow cause notices and must not be read to mean thatthe committee has already formed an opinion, no interference atthis stage is warranted. / 6. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned notices do not indicate any basis for making the allegations, is also incorrect. It is an admitted case that M/s Pro Minerals Private Limited hasfailed to discharge its obligations. The only question to be considered is whether the petitioners are wilful defaulters or not. The allegations made are also very specific. The onusto show thatthefunds borrowed by M/sPro Minerals Private Limited were utilized for the purposes for which they were taken rests with the petitioners. It is also noticed that the petitioners have ^ alreadysubmittedtheirresponsestatingthatalthoughtheloansinitiallywere taken for a captive power plant, subsequently, the funds were utilised for setting up a modem material handling system with the permission ofthe respondent banks. This contention would also be considered by the concemed committee.

7. As stated above, no interference is called for at this stage. The petitions are,accordingly,dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU,J SEPTEMBER 26,2018 MK