Dismissed

M/s. Uma Shankar Traders, v. Reserve Bank Of India

Madras HC9 Mar 2022WP/12993/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed writ petitions challenging the declaration of petitioners as wilful defaulters. The Court directed that since legal representation was previously negatived in a related case and documents were already provided, a fresh notice for personal hearing would be issued for objections.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed; 2nd respondent directed to issue fresh notice for enquiry and pass suitable orders.

M/s. Uma Shankar Traders, Vs Reserve Bank Of India — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. No.15711 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.03.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

W.P. Nos.12993, 12994,12995, 15711,15712, & 15713 of 2018 and WMP Nos.15259, 15260, 15261, 18664, 18666, & 18668 of 2018

¶7

W.P.No.12993 of 2018

¶8

M/s. Uma Shankar Traders, Represented by its Partner, Shri K.Paramasivam, 115, Bhavani Road, Erode 638 004 ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

Reserve Bank of India, RBI Main Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶11

The South Indian Bank, Rep by its General Manager, T.S.No.16, Veterinary Hospital Road, Opp. Old Baniyan Market, Erode – 638 0011. Head Office at SIB House, T.B.Road, P.B.No.28, Thrissur -680 001.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P. No.15711 of 2018

¶16

Prayer in W.P.No.12993 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

¶17

the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling

¶18

for records of the 2^nd respondent dated 19.05.2018 in CDREC/GEN/RCP/074/2018-19, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice and consequently direct the second respondent to provide all documents sought for by petitioner in their letter dated 20.04.2018, permitting petitioner to be represented by a Lawyer and Auditor with assistant.

¶19

For petitioner	...	Mr. S.Ramesh
in all W.Ps
For respondents	...	Mr. C. Mohan,
in all W.P.S.		for M/s. King & Padridge for R1
	...	Mr. A.V.Radhakrishnan, for R2
	C O M M ON	O R D E R

¶20

All the writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by

¶21

the 2nd respondent dated 19.05.2018 directing the petitioners to appear for personal hearing before the Committee for the purpose of declaring the petitioners as wilful defaulters.

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P. No.15711 of 2018

¶25

According to the petitioners, since the issue is relating to the accounts maintained by the Bank, they require the assistance of Advocate or Auditor Accountant to assist them during the enquiry. Apart from that, the petitioners requested to provide vital reports and documents. In the event of those documents required by the petitioner is provided to them, and permitted to take an Advocate or Charted Accountant for enquiry, they will appear and raise their objections.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records

¶27

carefully.

¶28

So far as the first request of the petitioners to engage an Advocate or Charted Accountant to assist them in enquiry, this issue has been decided against the petitioner in another writ petition in W.P.No.8672 of 2018, dated 14.11.2019, wherein, this Court negatived the petitioner's request. Hence, that request need not be considered once again.

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P. No.15711 of 2018

¶32

So far as the documents required by the petitioners, the petitioners

¶33

sought for as many as 8 documents, out of which, document no.4 alone is entitled to and the remaining documents are no way related to the petitioners claim. Hence, the Bank is not under obligation to produce all the copies. However, the document required in Serial No.4 is the copies of documents relating to the petitioner's account placed by the Bank before the Committee.

¶34

Mr.A.V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank submitted that the account details had already been provided to the petitioners.

¶35

Considering those circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for

¶36

any relief sought in the writ petitions and hence, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P. No.15711 of 2018

¶41

2nd respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner for enquiry, On the date of enquiry, the petitioner is directed to appear and submit his objection, thereafter, the Committee is directed to pass suitable orders after giving personal hearings to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

09.03.2022

¶43

Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order mrp

¶44

¶45

The Reserve Bank of India, RBI Main Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶46

The General Manager, South Indian Bank, T.S.No.16, Veterinary Hospital Road, Opp. Old Baniyan Market, Erode – 638 0011. Head Office at SIB House, T.B.Road, P.B.No.28, Thrissur -680 001.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P. No.15711 of 2018

¶50

V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.

¶51

mrp

¶52

W.P. Nos.12993 to 12995 of 2018 and 15711,15712, 15713, of 2018

¶53

09.03.2022

¶54

6/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s. Uma Shankar Traders, v. Reserve Bank Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Uma Shankar Traders, v. Reserve Bank Of India

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

Syed Shah Jameeluddin, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Loganathan, Vs The District Collector

Vummidi Udayakumar Vs The Joint Secretary

R.Dorairaj, Vs The Branch Manager

Dr.S.Peter, Chairman, Madha Vs The Zonal Manager / Regional

M.Anbazhagan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu