Delhi High Court
Raghu Hari Dalmia vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors. on 17 April, 2018
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Pronouncement: 17.04.2018
+ W.P.(C) 3743/2018 & CM Nos.14825-26/2018
RAGHU HARI DALMIA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Prashanto Chadra Sen,
Sr. Adv with Mr. Anish
Dayal, Mr. S.K. Singh, Mr.
Jishnu Chaudhary, Mr.
Shivanshu Singh, Ms.
Rupam Sharma, Mr. Arjit
Pratap Singh and Mr. Ritul
Tandon, Advs.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondents
Through : Mr. H.S. Parihar and Mr.
K.S. Parihar, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Adv.
for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL)
CM No.14826/2018
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3743/2018 & CM No.14825/2018
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, says that
respondent no.3 can be deleted from the array of parties. The said
request is acceded to. Respondent no.3 is deleted from the array of
parties.
3. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Arun Aggarwal accepts
notice on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3, while Mr. H.S. Parihar
accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
4. In view of the order that I propose to pass, learned counsels
for the respondents say that he does not wish to file a counter
affidavit in the matter.
5. Broad averments which have been made in the captioned
writ petition are as follows:
5.1 The petitioner at the relevant point and time was the Director
on the Board of a Company by the name of Pro Minerals Private
Limited (in short 'PMPL'). The said company had borrowed funds
from a consortium of banks which included the Bank of
Baroda/respondent no.2. This agreement was executed by PMPL
with the consortium on 26.9.2014.
5.2 Apparently, there were defaults committed in repayment of
debt owed to the consortium of lenders including respondent no.2.
Consequently, proceedings were triggered against the petitioner for
declaring him a wilful defaulter.
5.3 A show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 was issued to the
petitioner in this behalf.
5.4 The broad allegations made in the show cause notice read as
follows:
"1. The company has envisaged Captive Power Plant
(CPP) as part of the project. Rs.49.17 crores drawn
for CPP project. Only Rs.10.68 cr incurred towards
expenses i.e., the company has not utilised the Bank's
funds for the purpose for which Bank finance was
availed. In spite of several demands the
company has not refunded the balance amount of
Rs.38.49 cr.
2. The company is maintaining current account with
ICICI Bank (outside the consortium) without prior
approval of the consortium members and has not
closed even after giving several commitments,
3. Company was maintaining current account with SBI
(Member of the consortium) without prior approval of
the consortium.
4. The company has availed CC limit of Fis.8.20 cr
from our Bank. However, as per the stock statement as
on 28.02.2017, the DP arrived is only Rs.0.30 lacs
(our share).
Thus the unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/
repayment obligations to the lender even when it has
the capacity to honour the said obligations and has
diverted/siphoned off the funds so that the funds have
not been utilised for the specific purpose for which
finance was availed of, nor are the funds available
with the unit in the form of other assets."
(emphasis is mine)
5.5 In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner preferred
a reply dated 20.2.2018. The petitioner, as expected, denied the
allegations made against him and has in fact asked for being
furnished that specific information, inter alia, with regard to
allegation of siphoning and diversion of funds.
5.6 Futhermore, the petitioner also asked for documents on
which reliance is sought to be placed by respondent no.2. It
appears that pursuant to the said reply, the petitioner was issued
impugned notice dated 3.4.2018.
5.7 By virtue of the impugned notice, the petitioner was directed
to appear before the Wilful Defaulters Committee (in short
'committee') constituted by respondent no.2, on 18.4.2018, at 10
a.m.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this
court via the instant writ petition.
7. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is that neither the
Committee has supplied the relied upon documents, nor has an
opportunity was given to the petitioner for being represented by a
lawyer. In regard to the latter, reference is made by the counsel for
the petitioner to clause 4 of the impugned notice dated 3.4.2018.
7.1. In support of the submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that a lawyer is permitted to participate in the
proceedings, reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in the matter of: Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs.
Kingfisher Airlines Limited & Ors 2016 (154) DRJ 164 (DB).
8. On the other hand, Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the
respondent no 2 and 3 says he cannot but argue that principles of
natural justices have to be adhered to. However, it is the
submission of Mr. Aggarwal that relied upon documents have
already been furnished to the petitioner. Insofar participation of
lawyer(s) is concerned, learned counsel says that respondent no.2
and 3 can have no objection to the same. The only caveat that Mr.
Aggarwal sought to enter in this regard is that questions may have
to be put to the petitioner which he would need to answer.
8.1 Mr. Parihar, who appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1
made no submissions on the merits. As regards, submission with
regard to guidelines setforth in circular dated 01.07.2015, were
concerned, they were not required to made as the petitioner at this
juncture did not press the same.
9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. According to
me, the writ petition can be disposed of with the following
directions given the fact that the difference in stands of the
opposing parties is narrow.
(i) The Committee will reconvene a meeting qua the petitioner
as the time between today and the date of meeting already fixed by
via the impugned notice is short. Accordingly, due written notice
will be given to the petitioner with regard to the same. The
Committee will attempt to convene a meeting at the earliest,
though, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order.
(ii) The Committee will furnish at least, two weeks prior to the
meeting a complete set of relied upon documents to the petitioner.
(iii) The Committee will permit the lawyer to accompany the
petitioner for the hearing. It would be up to the petitioner as to
whether he would like to answer the questions directly or via his
lawyer.
(iv) The petitioner will remain present, as agreed, by his counsel.
10. Needless to say, I have not examined the tenability of the
challenge made subject to the guidelines contained in circular
No.DBR No.CID.BC.22/20.16.2003/2015-16 dated 1.7.2015.
11. The pending applications are closed accordingly.
12. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 17, 2018/mk
