Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 17-4-2025, issued by the Bank of India (‘respondent’) as illegal, invalid, null and valid, Vikas Mahajan, J., issued notice to the respondent and stayed the operation of the impugned order classifying the petitioner’s status as ‘fraud/defaulter’, till the next date.
In the present case, vide impugned order dated 17-4-2025, passed by the respondent, the bank decided to classify the petitioner’s status as ‘fraud/defaulter’. The petitioner contended that it was stated in the impugned order that the show-cause notice dated 2-1-2025 was issued to him, but the same was undelivered. He submitted that since the show cause notice was never delivered to the petitioner, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have given his reply or written submission to the same.
The petitioner further submitted that a Resolution Plan under the Reserve Bank of India’s Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets, 2019 regarding ‘Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.’ was approved by the Supreme Court and a Resolution Implementation Memorandum dated 30-9-2022 was entered into between the said company, as well as, the persons set out in Schedule I Part A to the said memorandum, which also included the respondent. The Resolution Implementation Memorandum had already been given effect to.
The petitioner highlighted the Clause 4.1.4 of the Resolution Implementation Memorandum, wherein it was stated that within three months from the receipt of RBI Approval, the Lenders and NABARD shall ensure that the red-flag classification, fraud classification, and wilful defaulter classification of RCFL, its directors and officers shall be removed at the sole cost and expense of the Lenders, including removal from the database of CIBIL, CRILIC or all other credit information companies and hand over to the Resolution Applicant, documentary evidence in this regard.
The petitioner submitted that since the resolution plan had already been implemented, therefore, the respondent ought not to have proceeded against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had worked with the aforesaid company only for a period of 18 months, initially as Additional Director/CEO and thereafter, as Executive Director. He submitted that the credit facility, referred in the impugned order pertained prior to the period spent by the petitioner in the said company. Further, the account of the company turned Non-Performing Asset only on 30-11-2019 after the petitioner had already resigned from his position as Executive Director.
Thus, in view of the above, the Court issued notice to the respondent and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 17-4-2025, till the next date.
The matter is next listed on 22-9-2025.
[Devand Pravin Mody v. Bank of India, W.P.(C) 7034 of 2025, decided on 22-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Pranjit Bhattacharya and Salonee Shukla, Advocates.