Full Judgment Text
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 13 December, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 17125/2024, CM APPL. 72739/2024, CM APPL. 72740/2024
& CM APPL. 72741/2024
SH. LAGADAPATI MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Neeha
Nagpal and Ms. Nitya Prabhakar,
Advocates
versus
IDBI BANK LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sidhartha Barua and Mr. Anuraag
Mehta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 72740/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just all exceptions.
W.P.(C) 17125/2024, CM APPL. 72739/2024 & CM APPL. 72741/2024
1. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank appears on advance notice.
2. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present writ petition can be disposed of on a very
limited but important aspect.
3. This is not the first round of litigation.
4. Earlier, petitioner had filed a W.P. (C) No. 928/2024.
5. While aforesaid petition was filed, the petitioner had challenged the
show cause notices issued by several banks, including IDBI Bank which was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:16.12.2024
15:28:44
W.P.(C) 17125/2024 1
impleaded as respondent no. 8 in the aforesaid writ petition. While disposing
of the aforesaid writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued
certain directions which are contained in Para-11. These read as under: -
“11. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The petitioners and/or their authorized representative, shall be allowed
inspection of the records of the company, as available with the respondent
banks, on the basis of which, the SCNs were issued to the petitioners.
(ii) Since, record of the company is also stated to be in the possession of the
liquidator, it is directed that the petitioners and/or his authorized
representative, shall also be allowed to inspect the record of the company,
as available with the liquidator.
(iii) Upon inspection of the record, as made available by the respondent
banks and the liquidator, the petitioners shall state the specific documents,
that are required from the said record. The same shall be provided to the
petitioners, thereafter.
(iv) The cost of providing copies of the relevant documents to the
petitioners, shall be borne by the petitioners.
(v) The aforesaid process of inspection of the record of the company and
stating the specific documents, shall be completed by the petitioners, within
a period of ten days. The process of providing the relevant documents to the
petitioners, shall be completed by the respondent-banks and the liquidator,
within a period of ten days, thereafter.
(vi) Upon receipt of the documents, the petitioners shall file reply to the
SCNs, within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
(vii) The petitioners are at liberty to make request for personal hearing to
the respondent-banks, which shall be considered, accordingly.”
6. Feeling aggrieved, IDBI Bank (respondent no. 8 in the aforesaid writ
petition) filed LPA which was registered as LPA No. 550/2024. The
grievance raised by the IDBI Bank was with respect to the liberty granted by
the Court to the concerned petitioner for making request for personal hearing.
7. After hearing both the sides, learned Division Bench, while observing
that the aforesaid direction was not mandatory in nature held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:16.12.2024
15:28:44
W.P.(C) 17125/2024 2
“10. Consequently, the present appeal along with the applications is
disposed of with liberty to the Appellant-Bank to either accept or reject the
Respondents’ request for personal hearing. It is clarified that it shall be
open to the Appellant-Bank to reject the request of the Respondents for
personal hearing on the grounds stated in the present appeal. However, the
Appellant-Bank shall give reasons for arriving at its conclusion. Needless
to state, in the event the Respondents are aggrieved by the decision of the
Appellant- Bank, they shall be at liberty to challenge the same in
accordance with law. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left
open.”
8. Such order is dated 08.07.2024.
9. According to the petitioner, a request in this regard was made to IDBI
Bank by sending a communication on 15.10.2024 which was never
considered and the Fraud Examination Committee-I has gone ahead and
passed the order which is impugned herein.
10. It is stated that the petitioner was not even communicated whether such
request had been considered, accepted or rejected and, therefore, further
follow-up action taken up by the Bank is in teeth of the aforesaid specific
directions passed by learned Division Bench.
11. This Court has seen the aforesaid communication sent by the petitioner
to IDBI Bank.
12. Quite evidently, the same is not happily worded as petitioner had asked
to convene a Joint Lenders Meeting (JLM) and expressed his inclination to
join and participate in the aforesaid meeting either in person or through
videoconferencing to sort out the issues of the documents with the bank.
Undoubtedly, in the aforesaid communication, he also made reference about
the order of this Court in Para-9 but all-in-all, the aforesaid communication
was not very clear and specific in indicating that he was, actually speaking,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:16.12.2024
15:28:44
W.P.(C) 17125/2024 3
seeking a personal hearing in relation to the core issue involved in the present
case.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the aforesaid
request was received by IDBI Bank but it was not, at all, suggesting as if he
was seeking a personal hearing and, therefore, there was no reason to consider
or respond to the same.
14. As noticed above, the aforesaid communication, though after the
disposal of the aforesaid LPA, is not happily worded and, therefore, it seems
that there was no response from IDBI Bank to the aforesaid communication.
15. During course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner did
admit, in all fairness, that the expression used in the aforesaid communication
could have been better. He, however, submits that the aforesaid
communication may be deemed as a request for personal hearing to IDBI
Bank and submits that IDBI Bank may, therefore, be requested to consider the
same and to take appropriate decision in terms of the directions contained in
order dated 08.07.2024.
16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid peculiar facts, the present writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions:-
i. The communication dated 15.10.2024 shall be treated as a
request for personal hearing.
ii. The IDBI Bank shall consider the aforesaid request in terms of
the specific directions contained in Para-10 of order dated
08.07.2024 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No. 550/2024.
iii. The fate of the aforesaid request shall be duly communicated to
the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:16.12.2024
15:28:44
W.P.(C) 17125/2024 4
17. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 is also
set aside.
18. Needless to say, IDBI Bank would be at liberty to take further requisite
steps after deciding the aforesaid representation/application dated 15.10.2024.
19. All the other rights and contentions raised in the present writ petition
are left open.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2024/ dr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:16.12.2024
15:28:44
W.P.(C) 17125/2024 5