Delhi High Court
Deepak Puri & Anr vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 3 October, 2016
$~34.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9123/2016 and CM APPL. 36936-37/2016
DEEPAK PURI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with
Mr. Apoorve Karol, Advocate
versus
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 03.10.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for issuing directions to the respondent/State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur to defer personal hearing granted to them in terms of the notice dated
24.08.2016.
2. This is the second round of litigation that the petitioners have initiated
against the respondent/Bank. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners had
filed W.P.(C)6707/2016, praying inter alia for issuing directions to the
respondent/Bank to defer the personal hearing granted to them in terms of
the RBI Guidelines, before declaring them as wilful defaulters, by eight
weeks. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that the
petitioner No.1 had to undergo a surgery for cancer of the left buccal
mucosa (cheek) at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
(USA), for which his wife, petitioner No.2 had accompanied him. In the
given circumstances, a request was made for deferring the personal hearing.
Vide order dated 10.08.2016, the respondent/Bank was directed to postpone
the personal hearing to be afforded to the petitioners beyond 02.09.2016 and
on any day on or after 04.10.2016, under intimation to the petitioners.
3. Subsequently, the respondent/Bank had issued a notice dated
24.08.2016, informing the petitioners that they should present themselves
before the Identification Committee on 04.10.2016, for being granted a
hearing (Annexure P-14 colly). The petitioners had responded by writing a
letter dated 28.09.2016, stating inter alia that the petitioner No.1 was in the
process of recovery and rehabilitation for the postoperative cancer surgery
and it would taken him some time to resume his business duties. It was also
explained that due to surgery of the mouth and jaw, petitioner No.1 was not
in a position to have any conversation and therefore, a request was made for
deferring the personal hearing by eight weeks.
4. Ms. Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the
Court to the certificate dated 13.09.2016, issued by the Surgeon at the
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, recording inter alia that the
petitioner No.1 had undergone extensive surgery of the mouth and jaw on
08.04.2016 and his postoperative recuperation period is expected to be of
four months and that he was likely to return to work at full capacity by
01.01.2017. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the
certificate issued by the Surgeon mentions 01.01.2017 as the date for the
petitioner No.1 to be able to resume his business duties, the petitioners are
only requesting for deferment of the hearing by the Identification committee
constituted by the respondent/Bank, till the end of November, 2016.
5. Issue notice.
6. Ms. Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank accepts notice and
states that the petitioners have already been accommodated in terms of the
order dated 10.08.2016 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by them and
further deferment cannot be acceded to by the Bank as it is unnecessarily
delaying the entire process. She further states that at least the petitioner No.2
can be directed to appear before the Identification Committee of the
respondent/Bank on the date fixed, if not the petitioner No.1.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.2, the wife of
the petitioner No.1 is busy attending to her husband during the postoperative
recuperation period due to several complications that have occurred on
account of the surgery that he had to undergo. She assures the Court that the
authorised representatives of the company in question, i.e., M/s Moser Baer
India Ltd. has been regularly appearing before the Identification Committee
and shall do so even tomorrow and deferment of the hearing is only sought
on behalf of the petitioners No.1 and 2 on account of the critical health
condition of the petitioner No.1.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioners and keeping in mind the health condition of the petitioner No.1,
as is apparent from a perusal of the certificate dated 13.09.2016, issued by
the Surgeon, who had operated on the petitioner (Annexure P-16), it is
deemed appropriate to direct the Identification Committee of the
respondent/Bank to grant a personal hearing to the petitioners on any date
after 30.11.2016.
9. It is made clear that no further accommodation shall be given to the
petitioners for any reason. In the event, the petitioners or any one of them
are not in a position to appear personally before the Identification
Committee, they shall appoint an authorised representative to appear on
their behalf.
10. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
OCTOBER 03, 2016
rkb/ap
