Gautam Mukarjee vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gautam Mukarjee vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute without costs: the orders declaring/confirming the Petitioner as a willful defaulter quashed and set aside; liberty to the Respondents to serve a fresh show cause notice at the address indicated in the cause title and initiate fresh proceedings; all defences of the Petitioner left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders declaring the Petitioner a willful defaulter were vitiated by failure of natural justice, the show cause notice dated 10 June 2019 having allegedly never been served upon him. +1 more

Court's answer

The orders declaring or confirming the Petitioner as a willful defaulter are quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The interference with the impugned orders is mainly on the ground of failure of natural justice, and all defences of the Petitioner are left open.

Key takeaways

The quashing does not preclude the Respondents from serving a fresh show cause notice on the Petitioner at the address indicated in the cause title of the Petition and initiating fresh proceedings for declaring him a willful defaulter.ratio¶28
Respondent No.3 filed no reply to contest the Petitioner's averment that the show cause notice dated 10 June 2019 was never served upon him.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.; oral order per Sonak, J.) allowed Writ Petition No. 4351 of 2024 (Gautam Mukarjee v. Union of India & Ors.). The Petitioner, stated to be 78 years old and appointed only as an independent Director of Ess Dee Aluminum Limited (EDAL), challenged the orders dated 12 June 2020 and the Review Committee's order declaring him a willful defaulter, the contesting Respondent being No.3, Bank of Baroda (RBI was Respondent No.2, with no relief claimed against it). Interference rested mainly on failure of natural justice: the show cause notice dated 10 June 2019 was pleaded as never served and the averment went unrebutted, Bank of Baroda neither appearing nor filing a reply despite service; it was also an undenied plea that Bank of Maharashtra, upon noticing the Petitioner's independent-director status, had made no willful-defaulter declaration. The Court quashed and set aside the orders declaring or confirming the Petitioner as a willful defaulter, left all his defences open, and permitted the Respondents to serve a fresh show cause notice at the address indicated in the cause title and to initiate fresh proceedings. Rule made absolute without any costs order.

22-WP-4351-24.DOCX

Sayali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI

Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2025.10.18 11:22:50 +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 4351 OF 2024

Gautam Mukarjee …Petitioner Versus Union of India And Ors. …Respondents

______________________________________________________ Mr. Aman Pawar a/w Mr. Raja Ratan Bhura i/b Taplegal, for Petitioner.

Mr. Benny Joseph a/w Mr. Devendra Pawar, Mr. Usama Shaikh, Ms. Shikha Dubey i/b BJ Law offices LLP, for Respondent No.2-RBI.

CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 17 OCTOBER 2025

ORAL ORDER:- (Per M.S. Sonak, J.)

Heard Mr. Aman Pawar for the Petitioner and Mr. Benny Joseph, for the 2^nd Respondent (RBI).

Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately, given our order dated 03 October 2025. Our order of 03 October 2025 reads as follows :-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that all Respondents have been served. Today, Mr Joseph appears for the 2^nd Respondent (RBI) and submits that no relief is claimed against the RBI. He also points out that the main dispute is between the Petitioner and the

Page 1 of 3

22-WP-4351-24.DOCX

3rd Respondent i.e. Bank of Baroda. There is neither any appearance on behalf of the Bank of Baroda nor has any reply been filed.

Accordingly, we post this Petition for final disposal at the admission stage on 17 October 2025.

If any of the Respondents, including the 3^rd Respondent, wishes to file the reply, then such reply should be filed and served upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner, latest by 13 October 2025. If no reply is filed, then we will proceed based on the averments in the Petition that the impugned order declaring the Petitioner as a willful defaulter was made without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly, stand over to 17 October 2025 for final disposal at the admission stage.”

Despite service, the contesting Respondent No.3 is not represented today by any counsel or authorized representative. Since notice for final disposal was already issued, we proceed to dispose of the Rule finally.

The Petitioner challenges the orders dated 12 June 2020 and the Review Committee's order declaring the Petitioner as a willful defaulter. The challenge is on the ground that there was a failure of natural justice and secondly, that the Petitioner was only an independent Director.

The Petitioner has pleaded that the show cause notice dated 10 June 2019 was never served upon the Petitioner. Such an averment has been made in the Petition and the 3^rd Respondent has not bothered to file any reply to contest this averment. The Petitioner is stated to be 78 years old and was appointed only as an independent Director with Ess Dee Aluminum Limited (“EDAL”).

Page 2 of 3

22-WP-4351-24.DOCX

Mr. Pawar pointed out that even the Bank of Maharashtra had initiated proceedings to declare the Petitioner as a willful defaulter. However, upon noticing that the petitioner was only an independent Director, no such declaration was made by the Bank of Maharashtra. The above fact has been pleaded in the Petition and once again, there is no denial from the 3^rd Respondent.

Given the above circumstances, we quash and set aside the orders, declaring or confirming the Petitioner as an willful defaulter. This will, however not preclude the Respondents from serving any show cause notice on the Petitioner at the address now indicated in the cause title of this Petition, and initiating fresh proceedings for declaring the Petitioner as a willful defaulter.

All defences of the Petitioner are, however left open. This is because we have mainly interfered with impugned orders on the grounds of failure of natural justice.

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any costs order.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(Advait M. Sethna, J)

Page 3 of 3