Steel Hypermart India Pvt Ltd vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2022 Latest Caselaw 11245 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.919 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.   STEEL HYPERMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,
     HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
     MANNAT, 1ST FLOOR, 2/1A,
     NANJAPPA ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 027
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR
     SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHI.

2.   SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHI
     S/O PRITHVIRAJ SINGHI
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     R/AT MANNAT, 1ST FLOOR, 2/1A
     NANJAPPA ROAD
     SHANTHI NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 027.

3.   SMT.SUMAN MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHI
     W/O MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHI
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     R/AT MANNAT, 1ST FLOOR, 2/1A
     NANJAPPA ROAD
     SHANTHI NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 027.

4.   SRI MUKESH SURANA
     S/O MANGI LAL SURANA
                             2



       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
       R/AT NO.54
       NISARGA LAYOUT, JIGANI
       BENGALURU - 560 105.

                                             ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI AKSHAY RAVINDRA PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
       BANKING SECURITIES FRAUD BRANCH
       NO.36, BELLARY ROAD
       GANGANAGAR
       BENGALURU - 560 032.

2.     SRI PUTTA LAKSHMI NARAYANA
       DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER/
       ZONAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK
       ZONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU
       4TH FLOOR, EAST WING
       RAHEJA TOWERS, #26,27
       M.G.ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P. FOR R1;
    SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY K., SR.ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN RC0782021E0002 OF THE
BANKING SECURITIES FRAUD BRANCH OF THE CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 420, 468, 471 R/W 120(B) OF IPC AND SECTION 7 AND
13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
                                       3



SESSIONS JUDGE AND             PRINCIPAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BENGALURU    (CCH-4)              AGAINST   THE   PETITIONERS.


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.07.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                                  ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

registration of crime in RC0782021E0002 for offences punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 120B of the IPC and

Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

2. Brief facts that led the petitioners to this Court in the

subject petition are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner - M/s Steel Hypermart Indian Private

Limited ('the Company' for short) was established by one Mahendra

Kumar Singhi, the 2nd petitioner herein with the objective of trading

in various iron and steel products like hot rolled, cold rolled, coated

colour roofing sheets, colls and angles. The company was

sanctioned an open cash credit limit of Rs.137.50 crores by the

Indian Bank against an already sanctioned limit of Rs.125/- crores

by the State Bank of India. On 08-02-2018 when the Bank of

Baroda joined the consortium with a cash credit limit of Rs.24.50

crores, joint documentation of Rs.162/- crores which was the outer

limit was done in favour of Directors of the Company. By 30-06-

2018 the Company closed the loan by paying it in full to the Indian

Bank and as on 01.10.2018 it had excess ad hoc limit of Rs.13.75

crores.

3. When things stood thus, on 09-01-2019 a GST raid was

conducted against the 1st petitioner/Company and all the records

were seized and directions were issued to the Banks not to interact

with the Company. Due to this problem, the loans of the 1st

petitioner insofar as they pertain to the Banks i.e., Indian Bank and

Bank of Baroda slipped into becoming a Non-Performing Asset

(NPA) and having waited for another year, the consortium of Banks

which was consisting State Bank of India, Indian Bank headed by

Bank of Baroda caused a legal notice upon the Company under

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On 29.05.2019 one of the

member of the consortium i.e., Bank of Baroda declared the

accounts of the Company with them as NPA. The petitioners replied

to the legal notice issued by the Indian Bank and the Indian Bank

on consideration of the reply notice went on to exercise its powers

under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and sought to mortgage

immovable properties of the petitioners. This came about on

22-07-2019.

4. Since GST raid had been conducted, a forensic audit was

sought to be conducted of the accounts with the consortium of

Banks covering the period from 26-09-2017 to 31-05-2019 and

pending report of the forensic audit, the Indian Bank sought to

proceed further in terms of a notice that was given on 22-07-2019

under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by issuing possession

notices. Those possession notices were challenged before this Court

in Writ Petition No.32112 of 2019. This Court did not entertain the

petition, but directed the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery

Tribunal at Bangalore under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

The respondents began to seal the godowns of the petitioners

situated in Karnataka which came to be challenged before this

Court and other parts of the country wherever godowns were

sought to be sealed and on 14-02-2020 the Indian Bank issued a

communication to the petitioners informing them that the Bank has

taken a decision to declare the Company as 'willful defaulter' and a

notice with regard to the same was issued upon the petitioners on

20-02-2020. This was called in question before this Court in Writ

Petition No. 4777 of 2020. This Court by its order dated

02-03-2020 stayed all further proceedings initiated by the Bank

which was to be in operation till the next date of hearing.

5. Pending the aforesaid writ petition, the other member of

the consortium namely Bank of Baroda gave its consent to the

Indian Bank which was the leader of the consortium for filing of a

complaint with the CBI in terms of its communication dated

09-03-2020. It is here the respondent/CBI comes into the picture.

A case in No.RC0782021E0002 came to be registered by the CBI,

Banking Securities Fraud Branch on 12.01.2021 against the

petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471

r/w 120B of the IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(4) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act. It is calling the action of registration

of the crime, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in

the subject petition.

6. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned

Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri K.

Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondent No.2.

7. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners

would contend that the procedure stipulated by the Reserve Bank of

India in terms of its circulars for declaration of a Company to be a

'willful defaulter' is not followed. Willful defaulter stands on a

different footing and for reference of the matter to the CBI those

companies stand on a different footing. It has to pass through the

circulars issued from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India

which are in the nature of master circulars. He would further

contend that in the teeth of the earlier interim order granted by this

Court, the Indian Bank could not have registered a complaint with

the CBI as all further proceedings had been stayed by this Court.

The writ petition came to be disposed of after registration of the

crime on the ground that the Bank would reconsider the case of the

petitioners insofar as it pertains to declaration of the Company to

be a willful defaulter. He would finally contend that the entire

proceedings are to be annulled and the matter be remitted back to

the appropriate authority to reconsider the matter afresh from the

stage of declaration of the petitioner as a wilful defaulter.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent/complainant, the Indian Bank, would contend that

those circulars are not even applicable to the facts of the case. The

Bank cannot lose its right of filing a complaint for offences

punishable under the IPC, before any competent investigating

authority as declaration of willful defaulter and registration of crime

for offences under the IPC are entirely different. If the case of the

petitioners is considered on the plea of technicalities Rs.200/-

crores would be at stake which is public money.

9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the 1st

respondent/CBI would submit that since a complaint was registered

before the CBI by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the consortium of

Banks, the CBI has proceeded to investigate into the matter. Both

the learned counsel for the respondents would seek dismissal of the

petition contending that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to

come out clean.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned senior counsel, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor for the CBI and learned counsel for 2nd respondent

and have perused the material on record.

11. The afore-quoted facts are not in dispute. To consider the

contentions so advanced of the petitioner/Company to be a willful

defaulter or otherwise, it is germane to notice master circulars

issued by the Reserve Bank of India which is binding upon

consortium of Banks. The Reserve Bank has issued a master

circular on 'willful defaulter'. The purpose of issuing the master

circular is as follows:

"To put in place a system to disseminate credit information pertaining to willful defaulters for cautioning banks and financial institutions so as to ensure that further bank finance is not made available to them."

The application of the said circular is to all scheduled commercial

banks and All India notified financial institutions. Its applicability to

the consortium of Banks or to the 2nd respondent/Bank is not in

dispute. Whether it is applicable to the case at hand is the dispute.

Clause 2 of the said circular deals with willful defaulters. Clause

2.1.3 defines who would be the willful defaulter and it reads as

follows:

"2.1.3. Willful Default: a 'willful default' would be deemed to have occurred if any of the following events is noted:

(a) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/ repayment obligations to the lender event when it has the capacity to honour the said obligations.

(b) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/ repayment obligations to the lender and has not utilized the finance from the lender for the specific purposes for which finance was availed of but has diverted the funds for other purposes.

(c) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/ repayment obligations to the lender and has siphoned off the funds so that the funds have not been utilized for the specific purpose for which finance was availed of, nor are the funds available with the unit in the form of other assets.

(d) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/ repayment obligations to the lender and has also disposed off or removed the movable fixed assets or immovable property given for the purpose of

securing a term loan without the knowledge of the bank/lender.

The identification of the willful default should be made keeping in view the track record of the borrowers and should not be decided on the basis of isolated transactions/ incidents. The default to be categorized as willful must be intentional deliberate and calculated."

Clause 2.5 deals with penal measures and reads as follows:

"The following measures should be initiated by the banks and FIs against the willful defaulters identified as per the definition indicated at paragraph 2.1.3 above:

a. No additional facilities should be granted by any bank/FI to the listed willful defaulters. In addition, such companies (including their entrepreneurs/ promoters) where banks/FIs have identified siphoning/diversion of funds, misrepresentation, falsification of accounts and fraudulent transactions should be debarred from institutional finance from the scheduled commercial banks, Financial Institutions, NBFCs, for floating new ventures for a period of 5 years from the date of removal of their name from the list of willful defaulters as published/disseminated by RBI/CICs.

b. The legal process, wherever warranted, against the borrowers/guarantors and foreclosure for recovery of dues should be initiated expeditiously. The lenders may initiate criminal proceedings against willful defaulters, wherever necessary.

c. Wherever possible, the banks and FIs should adopt a proactive approach for a change of management of the willfully defaulting borrower unit.

d. A covenant in the loan agreements, with the companies to which the banks/FIs have given funded/non-funded credit facility, should be incorporated by the banks/FIs to the effect that the borrowing company should not induct on its board a person whose name appears in the list of willful defaulters and that in case, such a person is found to be on its board, it would take expeditious an effective steps for removal of the person from its board.

It would be imperative on the part of the banks and FIs to put in place a transparent mechanism for the entire process so that the penal provisions are not misused and the scope of such discretionary powers are kept to the barest minimum. It should also be ensured that a solitary or isolated instance is not made the basis for imposing the penal action."

Clause 3 deals with mechanism for identification of willful

defaulters. Relevant clauses read as follows:

(a) The evidence of willful default on the part of the borrowing company and its promoter/whole-time director at the relevant time should be examined by a Committee headed by an Executive Director or equivalent and consisting of two other senior officers of the rank of GM/DGM.

(b) If the Committee concludes that an event of willful default has occurred, it shall issue a Show Cause Notice to the concerned borrower and the promoter/ whole- time director and call for their submissions and after considering their submissions issue an order recording the fact of willful default and the reasons for the same. An opportunity should be given to the borrower and the promoter/whole-time director for a personal hearing if the Committee feels such an opportunity is necessary."

Clause 4 deals with criminal action against willful defaulters.

The relevant clause that is germane is clause 4.2 and it reads:

"4.2 Accordingly, banks/FIs are advised, as under:

(i) Monitoring End-use of Funds:

In reference to Para 2.4 of this circular, it is advised that banks/FIs should closely monitor the end-use of funds and obtain certificates from borrowers certifying that the funds are utilized for the purpose for which they were obtained. In case of wrong certification by the borrowers, banks/FIs may consider appropriate legal proceedings, including criminal action wherever necessary, against the borrowers.

(ii) Criminal Action by Banks/FIs.

It is essential to recognize that there is scope even under the existing legislation to initiate criminal action against willful defaulters depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case under the provisions of Sections 403 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Banks/ FIs are, therefore, advised to seriously and promptly consider initiating criminal action against willful defaulters or wrong certification by borrowers, wherever considered necessary, based on the facts and circumstances of each case under the above provisions of the IPC to comply with our instructions and the recommendation of JPC.

It should also be ensured that the penal provisions are used effectively and determinedly but after careful consideration and due caution. Towards this end, banks/FIs are advised to put in place a transparent mechanism, with the approval of their Board, for initiating criminal proceedings based on the facts of individual case."

The aforesaid clauses are the ones which identify, declare, penalize

and take the said issue of willful default to its logical end. Clause

2.1.3 directs that a unit which has defaulted in its payment to the

lender and has not utilized the finance from the lender for the

specific purpose for which finance was availed of, but has diverted

the funds for other purposes, such a unit would be declared a willful

defaulter. Sub-clause (b) of clause 2.5 directs that legal process,

wherever wanted against borrowers, guarantors and foreclosure of

recovery of dues should be initiated expeditiously on those persons

who are declared to be willful defaulters. Identification of willful

defaulters is dealt with under Clause 3. A committee is to be

constituted headed by the Executive Director and that committee

should conclude that the unit is to be declared as willful defaulter

and issue a show cause notice to the concerned borrower, call for

submissions, record the same and then declare the unit as willful

defaulter. Criminal action against such willful defaulters should be

initiated after careful consideration and due caution is what clause

sub-clause (ii) of clause 4.2 mandates. This is the scheme of

declaration of a unit to be a willful defaulter.

12. Subsequent to the circular so issued by the Reserve Bank

of India on 1st July 2015, a subsequent circular is issued on 1st July

2016 in furtherance of the said circular. The circular was called the

Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification and Reporting by

Commercial Banks and Select FIs) Directions 2016. The purpose

for issuance of the said circular is as found in clause 1.3 which

reads as follows:

"1.3 Purpose:

These directions are issued with a view to providing a framework to banks enabling them to detect and report frauds early and taking timely consequent actions like reporting to the investigative agencies so that fraudsters are brought to book early, examining staff accountability and do effective fraud risk management. These directions also aim to enable faster dissemination of information by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to banks on the details of frauds, unscrupulous borrowers and related parties, based on banks' reporting so that necessary safeguards/ preventive measures by way of appropriate procedure and internal checks may be introduced and caution exercised while dealing with such parties by banks."

Clause 2.2 deals with classification of frauds and it reads as follows:

"2.2 Classification of Frauds.

2.2.1 In order to have uniformity in reporting, frauds have been classified as under, based mainly on the provisions of the Indian Penal Code:

a. Misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.

b. Fraudulent encashment through forged Instruments, manipulation of books of account or

through fictitious accounts and conversion of property.

c. Unauthorised credit facilities extended for reward or for illegal gratification.

            d.    Cash shortages.
            e.    Cheating and forgery.
            f.    Fraudulent    transactions    involving    foreign
                  exchange.

            g.    Any other type of fraud not coming under the
                  specific heads as above.

2.2.2 As regards cases under (d) and (f) above cash shortages resulting from negligence and fraudulent forex transactions involving irregularities/violation of regulations have also to be reported as fraud if the intention to cheat/ defraud is suspected or proved. Notwithstanding the above, the following cases shall be treated as fraud and reported accordingly.

a. cases of cash shortage more than Rs.10,000/-

(including at ATMs) and

b. cases of cash shortage more than Rs.5,000/- if detected by management/auditor/inspecting officer and not reported on the day of occurrence by the persons handling cash."

Chapter VI of the circular deals with guidelines for reporting frauds

to Police/CBI. Clause 6.1 details about such reporting. In a case of

public sector Bank if amount involved is below 30 million the

agency to whom the complaint is to be made is the State Police and

if it is 250 million and up to 500 million it is to the CBI. It is in

terms of this clause the Indian Bank has registered the complaint

with the CBI. This is the broad framework of the master circulars

issued by the Reserve Bank of India for declaration as willful

defaulters and borrowers who had indulged in fraud.

13. In the light of the afore-quoted framework, if the facts

narrated, in the case at hand are considered, the unmistakable

inference would be that the entire proceedings having been initiated

against the petitioners in terms of the afore-quoted circulars, the

submission that the circulars are not applicable to the facts of the

case at hand is rendered unsustainable, as it is fundamentally

flawed. The issue with regard to applicability of the circular or

otherwise, will have to be placed to the background, in the light of

the other submission made by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioners with regard to the act of the respondents in

overreaching the order, albeit, interim, passed by this Court.

14. The petitioners had been declared to be willful defaulters

by communications dated 14-02-2020 and 20-02-2020 by invoking

the aforesaid circulars. They were called in question before this

Court in Writ Petition No.4777 of 2020. This Court granted an

interim order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to

declaration of the petitioner/Company to be a willful defaulter. The

interim order was operating up to 15-04-2021. On 15-04-2021 the

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent appeared before the Court

and submitted that the petition may be disposed of remitting the

matter to the Review Committee of the Indian Bank. Reserving

liberty to the Committee to consider the matter afresh in the light

of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of

India v. M/s Jah Developers Private Limited, an order is passed by

the Court accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the

Indian Bank while disposing of the petition, which reads as follows:

"ORDER

Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned senior Advocate for the respondent-Indian Bank,, in his usual fairness, submits that this petition may be disposed of by remitting the matter to the Review Committee of the Indian Bank, reserving liberty to the Committee to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. M/s Jah Developers Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4776 of 2019).

2. Shri Akshay Ravindra Prabhu, learned Advocate for petitioners is satisfied with the submission of learned senior Advocate.

3. In view of the submission of Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, this petition is disposed of by remitting the matter to the Review Committee of the Indian Bank to consider the same afresh in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra."

The order was passed on 15-04-2021. What the 2nd respondent/

Bank would do is register a complaint before the CBI on

12-01-2021, the knowledge of which was never with the

petitioners. It is not demonstrated by the 2nd respondent/Bank that

the petitioners had the knowledge of registration of crime at any

time before summons. Though the complaint was made by the 2nd

respondent/Bank on 12-01-2021, it appeared before the Court and

made a submission that the root of the matter would be re-

considered, the root of the matter being declaration of the

petitioner/ Company as a willful defaulter. To a pointed query of

this Court to the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent as

to what has happened to the submission made on 15-04-2021

before this Court with regard to re-consideration of the case of the

petitioner to be a willful defaulter, the learned senior counsel would

submit that the matter is still pending consideration before the

Competent Authority. Therefore, from 15-04-2021 till 14-07-2022

there was no progress in re-consideration of the case of the

petitioner to be a willful defaulter.

15. The entire issue of declaration of the petitioner as willful

defaulter and subsequent action of registration of a crime was on

the basis of the declaration of the petitioner to be a willful defaulter

or a fraudulent borrower. That having been stayed by this Court

and the stay being in operation up to 15-04-2021, the 2nd

respondent concealing the said fact of pendency of the case, could

not have registered the crime, as the basis for registration of crime

was the account being slipped into NPA on whatever score it would

be, and the declaration of the petitioner as willful defaulter having

been stayed, it could not have appeared before the Court without

divulging the fact that a complaint had already been registered

before the CBI, get the matter disposed of, to re-consider the very

root that led to registration of the crime. If the very root is to be

reconsidered according to the Bank, it can hardly be justified as to

how a crime could be registered in the teeth of subsistence of

interim order during the pendency of the writ petition and

subsistence of reconsideration at the hands of the 2nd

respondent/Bank. It is not the merit of the matter that needs

consideration at the hands of this Court, but it is the act of the 2nd

respondent/Bank in trying to overreach the interim order of this

Court by registering the crime.

16. As a matter of fact even disposal of the writ petition did

not obliterate the interim order. The petition was disposed of by

remitting the matter to the Review Committee to consider the same

afresh, that too on the submission made by the senior counsel

representing the 2nd respondent/Bank. Therefore, the very act of

the Bank in registering the crime during subsistence of the interim

order and getting the matter closed where interim order was

subsisting on the ground that it would reconsider the very

declaration of the petitioner to be a willful defaulter was flawed.

Without arriving at the said decision even as on date, the 2nd

respondent cannot now justify that the proceedings have to go on

pursuant to registration of crime. The meat in the merit of the

matter need not be gone into at this juncture, as it is on the

submission of the 2nd respondent/Bank itself, in the earlier

proceedings, the matter is required to be reconsidered from the

issue of declaring the petitioner to be willful defaulter.

17. The submission of the learned senior counsel representing

the 2nd respondent/Bank that master circulars are not even

applicable to the case at hand is to be repelled as it is

fundamentally flawed, as every action against the petitioner is

taken under the master circulars. Since the matter is pending

consideration before the Review Committee of the Indian Bank even

as on date, it would be highly inappropriate to permit the 1st

respondent/CBI to continue with the proceedings which were

registered in the teeth and contrary to the interim order passed by

this Court.

18. The other submissions made by the learned senior

counsel with regard to the declaration of willful defaulter or a fraud

would have to be placed behind the curtains, albeit, for the present,

as it would depend upon the outcome of the decision of the Review

Committee, before whom all the issues of declaration of the

petitioner to be a willful defaulter are pending consideration. All

further actions of the respondents would depend upon the outcome

of the decision of the Review Committee. Permitting further

proceedings to continue in the teeth of the aforesaid facts would

become an abuse of the process of law and result in permitting an

action which is initiated in an attempt to overreach the orders of

this Court, which action sans countenance.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The First Information Report in No.RCO782021E0002 of the Central Bureau of Investigation and pending before the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore stands quashed.

(iii) The respondents are at liberty to initiate such proceedings against the petitioners subject to the outcome of the decision of the Review Committee of the 2nd respondent/Bank in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Jah Developers Private Limited (supra).

(iv) In the event proceedings would be initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the decision of the Review Committee, the same shall be in accordance with law.

Consequently, I.A.No.2/2021 stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp CT:MJ