RBI vide Master Circular on ‘Wilful Defaulters dated 01.07.2015, revised its guidelines for system of identification of wilful defaulters as to ensure that further bank finance is not made available to them.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4776 of 2019). observed as under;
However, we are of the view that Article 19(1)(g) is attracted in the facts of the present case as the moment a person is declared to be a wilful defaulter, the impact on its fundamental right to carry on business is direct and immediate.
Now in light of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra), the question is;
“ Whether restrictions can be placed on Fundamental Rights of a citizen without judicial sanctions/scrutiny.”
Excerpts of the Order;
# 3. The RBI Circular dated 01.07.2013 is described as a “Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters” [“Master Circular”] and is addressed to all scheduled commercial banks (excluding Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) and Local Area Banks (LABs)), and to All India Notified Financial Institutions. The purpose of the said Master Circular is stated as follows:
“Purpose;
To put in place a system to disseminate credit information pertaining to wilful defaulters for cautioning banks and financial institutions so as to ensure that further bank finance is not made available to them.”
Under this Master Circular, “wilful default” has been defined as follows:
“2.1. Definition of wilful default The term “wilful default” has been redefined in supersession of the earlier definition as under:
A “wilful 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 even 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 utilised 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 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.
(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 by him or it for the purpose of securing a term loan without the knowledge of the bank/lender.”
# 4. On 01.07.2015, the RBI issued another Master Circular consolidating instructions on how all scheduled commercial banks and notified financial institutions are to deal with wilful defaulters [“Revised Circular”]. The definition of “wilful default” is substantially the same as in the earlier Master Circular. However, the mechanism for identification of wilful defaulters has been substituted as follows:
“3. Mechanism for identification of Wilful Defaulters The mechanism referred to in paragraph 2.5 above should generally include the following:
(a) The evidence of wilful 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 wilful 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 wilful 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.
(c) The order of the Committee should be reviewed by another Committee headed by the Chairman/Chairman & Managing Director or the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer/CEOs and consisting, in addition, to two independent directors/nonexecutive directors of the bank and the Order shall become final only after it is confirmed by the said Review Committee. However, if the identification Committee does not pass an order declaring a borrower as a wilful defaulter, then the Review Committee need not be set up to review such decisions.
xxx xxx xxx”
# 7. It will be noted that whereas the earlier Master Circular dated 01.07.2013 granted a hearing before the Grievance Redressal Committee headed by the Chairman/Managing Director, and also provided that the borrower should be provided 15 days’ time for making a representation against the preliminary decision of the First Committee, this situation does not now obtain. Under paragraph 3 of the Revised Circular dated 01.07.2015, it is only at the first stage that the First Committee is to issue a show cause notice and to consider the submissions of the borrower, a discretion being left with the aforesaid Committee to give or not to give a personal hearing. It may be noticed that the Review Committee consisting of the higher officials and independent directors is completely in-house. Neither does the order of the First Committee have to be given to the borrower, nor is any representation required against the aforesaid order, nor is there any personal hearing before the Review Committee, which goes through the First Committee’s order by itself and then comes to a conclusion without involving the borrower at all.
# 8. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that serious consequences follow after a person has been classified as a wilful defaulter. These consequences are as follows:
(a) No additional facilities to be granted by any bank/financial institution [paragraph 2.5(a)].
(b) Entrepreneurs/Promoters would be barred from institutional finance for a period of 5 years [paragraph 2.5(a)].
(c) Any legal proceedings can be initiated, including criminal complaints [paragraph 2.5(b)].
(d) Banks and financial institutions to adopt proactive approach in changing the management of the wilful defaulter [paragraph 2.5(c)].
(e) Promoter/Director of wilful defaulter shall not be inducted by another borrowing company [paragraph 2.5(d)].
(f) As per section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a wilful defaulter cannot be a resolution applicant.
# 9. It is in this background that we have to consider the question as to whether a lawyer ought to be allowed to represent the borrower before the First Committee and/or Review Committee under the Revised Circular dated 01.07.2015.
# 21. Given the above conspectus of case law, we are of the view that there is no right to be represented by a lawyer in the in-house proceedings contained in paragraph 3 of the Revised Circular dated 01.07.2015, as it is clear that the events of wilful default as mentioned in paragraph 2.1.3 would only relate to the individual facts of each case. What has typically to be discovered is whether a unit has defaulted in making its payment obligations even when it has the capacity to honour the said obligations; or that it has borrowed funds which are diverted for other purposes, or siphoned off funds so that the funds have not been utilised for the specific purpose for which the finance was made available. Whether a default is intentional, deliberate, and calculated is again a question of fact which the lender may put to the borrower in a show cause notice to elicit the borrower’s submissions on the same. However, we are of the view that Article 19(1)(g) is attracted in the facts of the present case as the moment a person is declared to be a wilful defaulter, the impact on its fundamental right to carry on business is direct and immediate. This is for the reason that no additional facilities can be granted by any bank/financial institutions, and entrepreneurs/promoters would be barred from institutional finance for five years. Banks/financial institutions can even change the management of the wilful defaulter, and a promoter/director of a wilful defaulter cannot be made promoter or director of any other borrower company. Equally, under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a wilful defaulter cannot even apply to be a resolution applicant. Given these drastic consequences, it is clear that the Revised Circular, being in public interest, must be construed reasonably. This being so, and given the fact that paragraph 3 of the Master Circular dated 01.07.2013 permitted the borrower to make a representation within 15 days of the preliminary decision of the First Committee, we are of the view that first and foremost, the Committee comprising of the Executive Director and two other senior officials, being the First Committee, after following paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Circular dated 01.07.2015, must give its order to the borrower as soon as it is made. The borrower can then represent against such order within a period of 15 days to the Review Committee. Such written representation can be a full representation on facts and law (if any). The Review Committee must then pass a reasoned order on such representation which must then be served on the borrower. Given the fact that the earlier Master Circular dated 01.07.2013 itself considered such steps to be reasonable, we incorporate all these steps into the Revised Circular dated 01.07.2015. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside, and the appeals are allowed in terms of our judgment. We thank the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Parag Tripathi, for his valuable assistance to this Court.
Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.
--------------------------------------------
Every bank has got the duty to safeguard its funds and try to get back funds lent to borrowers.
ReplyDeleteBorrowers are seen when they want loans but often disappear when repayments are due.
SC observed in one case; : “ court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is a trustee of public funds. It cannot compromise public interest for benefiting private individuals. Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled, but also duty bound to recover the amount
Madras high court observed:"They behave as if it is their fundamental right not to repay loans, it says
Those who avail bank loans in the country behave as if it is their “fundamental right” not to repay the credit facilities and resort to all sorts of “gimmicks” to make the creditors run round in circles, the Madras High Court has said.
Declaring a borrower as wilful and unentitled to further credit may not be a violation of fundamental right
As long as the bank follows natural justice and then declares a borrower as wilful defaulter-no fundamental right is affected.
Supreme Court of India (1981.11.05) Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (1982 AIR 33, 1982 SCR (1)1137)
ReplyDelete“Under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, a citizen has the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business and the only restriction on this unfettered right is the authority of the State to make a law imposing reasonable restrictions under cl. (6). The principles underlying in cls. (5) and (6) of Art. 19 are now well settled and ingrained in our legal system in a number of decisions of this Court, and it is not necessary to burden this judgment with citations. The expression 'reasonable restriction' signifies that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable in all cases. The restriction which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by cl. (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.”
The question here is not whether a borrower can be declared as a wilful defaulter or not, my concern is that as per the present provisions a borrower can be declared as wilful defaulter by the the lender itself, which leads to placing of restrictions on the fundamental rights of the borrower. Lender being an interested party gives rise to conflicts of interest. In my opinion this function of declaring a borrower as wilful defaulter could have been entrusted to an independent authority.
ReplyDelete