Disposed

Anant Kumar Choudhary v. State Bank of India & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged two identical SBI orders declaring them willful defaulters without proper hearing, one passed while their review was pending and when they could not attend due to covid-19 or timezone issues. The Court directed the Review Committee to consider a detailed representation with all objections, decide by reasoned order, and withhold effect for fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to file representation within four weeks; Review Committee to pass reasoned order, not effective for fifteen days.

Anant Kumar Choudhary Vs State Bank of India & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~103 & 107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 657/2024 & CM APPL. 2985-2987/2024 SHALINI CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Jain, Mr. Love Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ashvin Raj Jaiswal, Advs. M: 8299595472 versus

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Mr. Akshit Kapur & Mr. Aditya Saxena, Advs. For SBI.

¶5

- W.P.(C) 691/2024 & CM APPL. 3069-3070/2024, CM APPL. 3240/2024

¶6

ANANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Jain, Mr. Love Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ashvin Raj Jaiswal, Advs. M: 8299595472 versus

¶7

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Mr. Akshit Kapur & Mr. Aditya Saxena, Advs. For SBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

O R D E R % 18.01.2024

¶9

CM APPL. 2985-2987/2024 in W.P.(C) 657/2024, CM APPL. 30693070/2024 & CM APPL. 3240/2024 in W.P.(C) 691/2024

¶10

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 23:25:12

¶13

Applications are disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 657/2024 & W.P.(C) 691/2024

¶15

The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, alleging gross abuse of power by the Willful Defaulters Identification Committee (“WDIC”) of the respondent no.1–State Bank of India (“SBI”) for declaring petitioner as a willful defaulter and directing publication of his name in the list of willful defaulters prepared by the Credit Information Companies (“CIC”).

¶16

It is submitted that the action of the WDIC in issuing two virtually identical and duplicate orders on different dates i.e., 20^th January, 2023 and 15^th September, 2023 declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters and publishing their name on the CIC’s list, violate the Principles of Natural Justice.

¶17

It is submitted that the second order dated 15th September, 2023 passed by the respondent no.1 is identical and appears to be directly copied from the first order i.e., 20^th January, 2023.

¶18

It is submitted that the review application filed by the petitioners th against the order dated 20 January, 2023 is still pending before the Review Committee of the respondent no.1–SBI under the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) Master Circular.

¶19

It is submitted that despite pendency of the application for review before the Review Committee, the respondent no.1–SBI has passed the two identical orders dated 20th January, 2023 and 15th September, 2023 without granting any hearing to the petitioners.

¶20

It is submitted that the proceedings conducted by the SBI are governed by the RBI Master Circular which exclusively requires for an

¶21

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 23:25:12

¶22

opportunity of hearing to be given to the borrower or the promoter/whole time director, if deemed necessary.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to the order dated 25^th August, 2021 passed in CM(M) No. 536/2021 , wherein there were directions to the respondent no. 1–SBI to grant hearing to the petitioner through video conferencing. He submits that email dated 30^th November, 2022 was issued to the petitioners wherein the petitioners were called for physical hearing on 21^st December, 2022, which was in total violation of the directions passed by this court vide order dated 25^th August, 2021

¶24

It is submitted that by email dated 09th December, 2022, the petitioner i.e., Mr. Anant Kumar Choudhary submitted that he shall be joining the physical hearing for himself and also on behalf of Ms. Shalini Choudhary. However, it is submitted that subsequently by email dated 16^th December, 2022 issued by respondent no.1–SBI, the date fixed for hearing of the petitioners, was postponed. Subsequently, by email dated 08^th January, 2023, the petitioner i.e., Mr. Anant Kumar Choudhary confirmed his presence for physical hearing to be conducted on 20^th January, 2023.

¶25

th 11. It is submitted that, however, by email dated 16 January, 2023, the petitioner, i.e., Mr. Anant Kumar Choudhary, informed the respondent no. 1- SBI that he had been infected by covid-19, due to which it was not possible for him to appear for physical hearing on the date fixed.

¶26

It is submitted that the petitioner was declared as a defaulter vide order dated 20th January, 2023, the day on which the hearing was fixed, for which the petitioner had already expressed his inability to appear due to his covid-19 infection.

¶27

¶28

It is submitted that against the aforesaid order dated 20^th January, 2023, the petitioner filed an application dated 24^th February, 2023 before the Review Committee of Willful Defaulters, SBI.

¶29

It is submitted that while the review application of the petitioner was still pending, the petitioner received another email dated 29th August, 2023 for hearing on 15^th September, 2023.

¶30

The petitioner i.e., Mr. Anant Kumar Choudhary by his email dated th 29 August, 2023 requested for hearing by virtual mode since the petitioner was in Vancouver, Canada at that point of time.

¶31

th 16. Attention of this court has been drawn to the email dated 12 September, 2023, wherein it is stated that the time of personal hearing has been changed from 11:00 A.M. Indian Standard Time (“IST”) to 03:00 P.M. IST.

¶32

It is submitted that since the petitioner was in Vancouver, Canada at that point of time, the petitioner was required to attend the hearing through video conferencing at the SBI, Canada Bank, 6433, Fraser St, Vancouver, BC V5W 3A6, Canada as per the email dated 12th September, 2023 issued by the respondent no.1 –SBI.

¶33

It is submitted that the re-fixed time of 03:00 P.M. (IST) was local time at 02:30 A.M. at night in Vancouver, Canada. Therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to attend the said video conferencing hearing by travelling to the Canada Bank situated in Vancouver, Canada at 02:30 A.M. at night.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court to the email dated 13^th September, 2023, wherein the petitioner requested for another opportunity for hearing, since he was unable

¶35

¶36

to attend the video conferencing hearing held on 15^th September, 2023. 20. However, despite the request of the petitioner for re-fixing the date of hearing, by order dated 15th September, 2023, the second order which has been impugned in the present proceedings, was passed respondent no.1-SBI, again declaring the petitioner herein as willful defaulter. Thus, it is submitted that two orders viz. order dated 10^th January, 2023 and 15^th September, 2023, have been passed by respondent no.1-SBI under the same regulation twice, without granting any proper hearing to the petitioner.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-SBI on advance notice submits that no directions passed by this court have been violated.

¶38

He draws the attention of this court to the order dated 25^th August, 2021 passed in CM(M) No. 536/2021 , in particular to paragraph 7(i), wherein it had been directed that in the event travel restrictions between India and Thailand were removed, the petitioners would physically present themselves before the respondent no.1–SBI for grant of personal hearing before the WDIC.

¶39

Thus, it is submitted that since there were no travel restrictions in place at that point of time, therefore, the respondent no.1–SBI had accordingly issued emails to petitioners for their physical appearance before the WDIC of respondent no. 1-SBI in India.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-SBI further submits that two opportunities were granted to the petitioners for hearing through video conferencing in Thailand as well as in Canada, however, the petitioners did not avail the said opportunities.

¶41

He further submits that the review application of the petitioners

¶42

¶43

before the Review Committee is still pending and that the orders 20^th January, 2023 and 15^th September, 2023 declaring the petitioners as defaulters, have still not been confirmed by the Review Committee.

¶44

th 26. He further relies upon the order dated 13 March, 2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No. 12672/2022.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent no.1, thus, submits that opportunity of physical hearing as well as video conferencing hearing was duly granted to the petitioners. However, the said submission of respondent no.1 is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 29. Perusal of the record clearly shows that the review petition of the petitioners is still pending before the Review Committee of respondent no.1SBI. The Review Committee is yet to pass any order in terms of the RBI Master Circular and the status of the petitioners as defaulters, has still not been confirmed by the Review Committee of the SBI.

¶47

In view thereof, it is directed that the petitioners shall submit detailed representation to the Review Committee of Willful Defaulters of respondent no.1-SBI raising all the objections with respect to non-grant of hearing to them.

¶48

The Review Committee of Willful Defaulters (“Review Committee”) of respondent no.1-SBI shall consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶49

In view thereof, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the aforesaid Review Committee of respondent no.1-SBI by filing detailed representation within a period of four weeks from today. If such a representation is received by the Review Committee of respondent no. 1-

¶50

¶51

SBI, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter.

¶52

It is further directed that once an order is passed by the Review Committee, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of fifteen days to enable the petitioners to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. 34. This court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the case advanced on behalf of either of the parties. All the rights and contentions of both the parties are left open.

¶53

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of along with pending applications.

¶54

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶55

JANUARY 18, 2024/kr

¶56

Anant Kumar Choudhary v. State Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Kumar Choudhary v. State Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Qudsiya Vs Cbse & Anr.

Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airports Authority of India

Chandra Sen Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shiv Pujan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Janak Kumar Bhatia Vs Union of India & Anr.

Uday Jayant Desai Vs Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi & Anr.

M/S Uncultured, a Unit of Konnect Hospitality Vs the Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.

Anju Mehta Alias Anju Juneja Vs Govt. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Vs B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.

Gaurav Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Preeti Vs Gopal Singh

Satish Kumar Vs Sh Ajay Kumar Bhalla Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Shalini Choudhary Vs State Bank of India & Anr.

Somps Healthcare LLP Vs Union Bank of India & Anr.