Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar Garg & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank on 24 October, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Manmohan
$~185
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 1066/2024 & C.M.Nos.62733-62735/2024
PAWAN KUMAR GARG & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Ms.Astha Gumber with Mr.Manohar
Malik and Mr.Prateek Chauhan,
Advocates.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Respondent
Through: Dr.Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 24th October, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants-
petitioners challenging the order dated 17th September, 2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 12981/2024.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the fact that despite having a prima
facie case, the learned Single Judge has not granted any interim relief by
restraining the respondent/bank from taking any action consequent to
declaration of Apple Industries Limited and its erstwhile directors/
promoters and guarantors as fraud. The appellants are ex-director and
guarantor of Apple Industries Limited, which has now been sold as a going
concern.
Signing Date:25.10.2024
20:58:50
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the declaration of
account of Apple Industries Limited as fraud is arbitrary, illegal and in
contravention of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India
v. Rajesh Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1 as no opportunity of
representation/personal hearing was granted to the company. She states that
the declaration was made without following due process and Master
Circulars dated 01st July, 2016 and 15th July, 2024 issued by Reserve Bank
of India.
4. She states that two detailed forensic audits were conducted in the year
2017 and 2018 at behest of the respondent/bank, wherein the auditors did
not find any activity or transaction which would tantamount to fraud. She
further states that the declaration as fraud was made without conducting any
fresh investigation or audit.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/bank states that the
present appeal is not maintainable as the learned Single Judge has not passed
any judgment in the present case and the impugned order is purely
interlocutory. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of
this Court in Niko Resources Limited vs. Gujrat State Petroleum Corp.
2000 (55) DRJ (DB).
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed
after considering the fact that in another writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.12719/2024 filed by another ex-director of the company, no stay has
been granted by the learned Single Judge. In fact, a perusal of order dated
11th September, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.12719/2024 reveals that the
interim relief was denied on the ground that no reply was filed to the
impugned show-cause notice and the order dated 30th March, 2024 had
Signing Date:25.10.2024
20:58:50
wrongly been assailed as a show-cause notice. The learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No.12719/2024 has also prima facie found that the order dated 30th
March, 2024 is a reasoned order.
7. Keeping in view the fact that the learned Single Judge has denied
interim relief on the ground of parity, present appeal along with the
applications is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the present order shall
not bind the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 24, 2024
KA
Signing Date:25.10.2024
20:58:50
