Disposed

Ratul Puri v. State Bank of Patiala

Delhi HC5 Oct 2016W.P.(C)/9248/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ae petitioner challenges a notice from the State Bank of Patiala intended to list him as a wilful defalter. The Court observes the petitioner has no connection with the borrowing company and directs the bank to first decide on jurisdiction before making the list public.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the notice; direction to the bank to consider jurisdictional objections internally before communicating the decision non-publicly.

Ratul Puri Vs State Bank of Patiala — Delhi HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~40.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9248/2016 and CM APPL. 37346-48/2016 RATUL PURI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocates with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Ms. Aayushi S. Khazanchi and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE BANK OF PATIALA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶7

O R D E R % 05.10.2016

¶8

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing/setting aside a communication dated 09.09.2016, issued by the respondent/Bank, calling upon him to show cause and make submissions in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter, as to why his name should not be included in the list of wilful defaulters, as per the RBI guidelines.

¶9

Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that on the misconceived assumption of the respondent/Bank that the petitioner remains a Director of M/s Moser Baer India Ltd., a company that had been extended credit facilities, and the loan account of the said company had been classified as a Non-Performing Asset, the Identification

¶10

W.P.(C) 9248/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶11

Committee of the Bank has started the process of identifying wilful defaulters and proposes to include the name of the petitioner therein. He submits that a reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by the petitioner on 29.09.2016 (Annexure P-10), wherein the jurisdiction of the respondent/Bank to issue such a notice has been questioned on the ground that he has no connection with the company in question, neither being its Director or shareholder or promoter or guarantor at the time when the alleged default had taken place.

¶12

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that even earlier hereto, he had to approach the Court against such an action taken by the respondent/Bank by filing W.P.(C)1243/2016, wherein an order dated 15.02.2016 was passed directing that the hearing, if any, scheduled before the Grievance Redressal Committee pursuant to the show cause notice not be held.

¶13

It has been enquired from learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, as to whether any date of hearing has been fixed in the present case, to which the reply is in the negative. She submits that the reply of the petitioner has been received only recently and it has yet to be examined.

¶14

Having perused the notice to the show cause dated 09.09.2016 issued by the respondent/Bank and the reply dated 29.09.2016 submitted by the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent/Bank to consider the aspect of jurisdiction questioned by the petitioner in the first instance. After taking a decision on the said aspect, the same shall be communicated by the competent authority to the petitioner, without the same being made public for a period of two weeks reckoned from the date of receipt of the

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) 9248/2016

¶17

said notice by the petitioner, so as to afford reasonable time to him to seek his legal remedies if considered necessary, as per law.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

¶19

DASTI to the parties.

¶20

HIMA KOHLI, J
OCTOBER 05, 2016
rkb

¶21

W.P.(C) 9248/2016 Page 3 of 3

Ratul Puri v. State Bank of Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratul Puri v. State Bank of Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehta International Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Deepak Anand Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rakesh Gulati Vs Union of India & Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Texaco Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1)

Community Welfare Banquet Association Delhi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs Ircon International Limited

Cbre South Asia Private Limited & Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -5(2), New Delhi & Ors.

Pradeep Agarwal Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Alok & Ors. Vs Laxman & Ors.

Narender Kumar Nangia Vs Punjab and Sind Bank

Shruti Sharma Vs College of Art and Anr.

Ajay Maurya and Ors. Vs University of Delhi