w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another v/s Punjab National Bank & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27102WB1999PLC089755

Company & Directors' Information:- BALAJI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999TN1986PTC012919

Company & Directors' Information:- N BANK LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191WB1924PLC000442

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- BALAJI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190MH2011PTC225580

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

    W.P. No. 12 of 2020

    Decided On, 03 February 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

    For the Petitioners: Abhrajit Mitra, Rajarshi Kajaria, Advocates. For the Respondents: Joydip Banerjee, Abhishek Banerjee, Parna Roy Chowdhury, Shatanik Ghosh, Advocates.



Judgment Text


The Court:

1. The present challenge has been preferred primarily against a notice dated December 16, 2019 issued by the respondent no.1-bank to the petitioner no.1 and others.

2. The subject of the said notice reads as follows:

Identification of default in the loan account of M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. with the bank, as "willful defaulter". The notice proceeded to mention certain defaults having been committed by the petitioner no.1 and that siphoning off funds was also indicated from the conduct of the petitioner no.1.

3. The crucial paragraph, at page - 26 of the instant writ petition, stated as follows:

"If the default(s) is/are not rectified within 10 days from the receipt of this notice, bank intends to disclose or publish your name or the name/s of your company/ firm/ unit and your Director/s/Partner/s/Proprietor as willful defaulter in such manner and though such medium as the bank or RBI in their absolute discretion may think fit. This will eventually result in:

* Non Sanction of additional facility by any Bank/FI.

* Debarring the entrepreneurs/promoters from institutional fianc from SCBs, DFIs, Govt. owned NBFCs, Investment Institutions etc. for floating new ventures.

* Beside legal process, and foreclosure of recovery of dues, if warranted, criminal proceedings may be initiated.

We, therefore, advise you to rectify default in time and will thereby preclude the contingency for declaring you as a willful defaulter.

Besides above, the bank will take appropriate legal actions for recovery of bank dues without any further reference at your risk, responsibility and costs."

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that, as per the Master Circular on Willful Defaulters dated July 1, 2015, issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Chief Manager of the respondent no.1-bank did not have the authority to issue such notice. In this context, learned senior counsel relies on Clause 3, sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said Master Circular, which are as follows: "3. Mechanism for identification of Willful Defaulters The mechanism referred to in paragraph 2.5 above should generally include the following:

(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.

(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/non-executive 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 willful defaulter, then the Review Committee need not be set up to review such decisions."

5. It is argued that a Show Cause Notice, if at all, could be issued by the committee envisaged in Clause 3, headed by an Executive Director or equivalent and consisting of two other Senior Officers of the rank of GM/DGM.

6. In the present case, the Chief Manager of the concerned branch of the bank issued the notice, without having any authority under the law to do so.

7. It is argued that if the notice, particularly the last paragraph thereof, is taken in its proper context, a warning was issued to the petitioner no. 1 to rectify alleged defaults within ten (10) days from the receipt of the notice. Consequences of non-rectification, as contemplated in the notice, would entail the bank intending to disclose or publish the name of the petitioner no.1 and its Director/Partner/Proprietor as willful defaulter in such manner and through such medium as the bank or RBI, in their absolute discretion, might think fit.

8. The consequences thereof were also mentioned in the notice, inter alia, threatening non-sanction of additional facility by any bank/financial institution, debarring entrepreneurs/promoters from institutional finance, legal process, etc.

9. By relying on an unreported judgment dated January 9, 2020 passed by this court in W.P. No. 603/2019 [Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. & Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.], learned senior counsel argues that the authority issuing the notice in the said case, being a 'Centralized Loan Processing Centre' of the respondent no. 1, had no power to do so and only the Committee, as contemplated in the Master Circular, had such authority.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the impugned notice was merely a caution given by the bank to its customers, that is, the writ petitioner, for rectifying its defaults and was not, by itself, a declaration that the petitioner no.1 was a willful defaulter. It is argued that the said notice was rather an opportunity given to the petitioner no.1 to avoid being declared as a willful defaulter and was for the benefit of the petitioners themselves, rather than being a penal action against the petitioners. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents cites Clause 5.1 of Recovery Division Circular No.22/2015 dated August 31, 2015, issued by the Recovery Division of the respondent no.1 - bank regarding 'Willful Defaulters and Action There against'.

11. The said clause is reproduced below:

"5.1 A. When Borrower is to be declared as Willful Defaulter Preliminary Notice to Rectify Default Immediately on classification of an account as NPA and subsequent identification of the specific events/transactions perceived to have constituted as "Willful Default", as a measure of natural justice, Branches are advised to call upon the borrower(s) including the identified persons as per draft letter Annexure-I by registered post with AD as well as E-mail, if available, giving them 10 days time to rectify the default, indicating that the Bank intends to classify them as willful defaulter. Notice be sent to each identified persons, specifying each events of default on his part. For e.g: They have the capacity to pay, but not paying, there is diversion/siphoning of funds, sale of charged assets without depositing proceeds in the account.

B. When Guarantors (Individuals or Non-group Corporates or Group Corporates) are to be declared as willful defaulters:

Serve Recall/Demand notice on the guarantor as per the format devised by the bank."

12. It is submitted that the said Circular was in consonance with the RBI Guidelines and was issued subsequent to the Master Circular dated July 1, 2015. As such, it is argued that the bank was well within its jurisdiction to issue the said notice, pursuant to the said Circular.

13. The third argument advanced by the respondents is that the petitioners have not come with clean hands, since a huge amount is due from the petitioners, the repayment of which has deliberately been withheld by the petitioners. As such, it is submitted, that writ court ought not to grant a relief to such litigants.

14. A perusal of the relevant clause of the Master Circular dated July 1, 2015, issued by the RBI and, as such, binding on all banks, particularly Nationalized Banks of India, including respondent no.1 - bank, that is, clause 3, makes it abundantly clear that the Committee contemplated therein has to issue the Show Cause Notice to the concerned borrower 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. Clause 3(b) further provides that an opportunity should be given to the borrower and the promoters/whole-time Director for a personal hearing, if the Committee feels such an opportunity is necessary.

15. Sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 provides for a further review of the order of the Committee, which issued the Show Cause Notice, by another Committee headed by the Chairman/Chairman and Managing Director or the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer/CEOs and consisting, in addition, of two independent Directors/Non-Executive Directors of the bank and that the order shall become final only after it is confirmed by the said Review Committee. The Review Committee, as per sub-clause (c), need not even be set up in the event the Identification Committee does not pass an order declaring a borrower as a willful defaulter.

16. Sub-clause (a) of clause 3 categorically provides that the evidence of willful default 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, which Committee itself will issue the Show Cause Notice as contemplated in sub-clause (b).

17. In the present case, it is evident that no such Committee was formed at all, either for taking evidence of willful default and issuing Show Cause Notice, or for review, if such an order is passed.

18. The purport of the impugned notice is unambiguous as to the consequence thereof. If the notice stopped at asking the alleged defaults to be rectified and indicated that, in the event of non-rectification, the bank would take steps in consonance with clause 3 of the Master Circular of the RBI dated July 1, 2015, there could not have been much grievance on the part of the petitioners. Unfortunately, the impugned notice did not stop at that but threatened in unambiguous terms, that after the expiry of ten days, in the event the perceived defaults were not rectified, the bank intended to unilaterally disclose or publish the name of the borrower as willful defaulter in such manner and through such medium as the bank or the RBI, in their absolute discretion, may think fit.

19. Learned counsel for the respondents tries to juggle with the expression "intends" to argue that the notice was merely a prior warning and the word "intends" itself indicates that it was not necessary that the bank would actually disclose the names of the borrowers as being willful defaulters.

20. However, such an interpretation is absurd, since there was no protective screen between the proposed intention of the bank and its actual implementation by disclosure or publication of the name of the borrower as willful defaulter. The term "intends" automatically connotes an implicit threat of carrying out such intent at the arbitrary and unilateral whims of the bank. In a hypothetical situation, where the ten days had elapsed and, in the perception of the bank alone, the alleged defaults were not rectified, there was nothing to restrain the bank from disclosing or publishing the name of the borrower as willful defaulter, by carrying out such intent to its logical conclusion. Hence, the notice tantamount to declaration of the borrower as willful defaulter, with only a pause of ten days in the meantime from the receipt of such notice, without even permitting the borrower to show any cause or be heard on such declaration. The declaration or publication as willful defaulter was an automatic corollary of the notice after ten days from receipt and sought to usurp the power restricted to the Committee envisaged in Clause 3(a) of the Master Circular of the RBI, followed by a review by another Committee, as contemplated in Clause 3(b) of the same .

21. The other linguistic jargon sought to be interpreted on behalf of the respondents was the expression in the incriminating clause of the impugned notice, immediately following the expression "as wilful defaulter", being as follows:

"In such manner and though such medium as the bank or RBI in their absolute discretion may think fit".

22. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to impress upon the court that such expression meant that whatever action would be taken would be in the discretion of the RBI and as such, would comply with the Master Circular of the RBI.

23. However, the same logic is equally absurd as the previous one, since it was nowhere mentioned in the impugned notice that the Master Circular would be followed. On the contrary, the expression relied on by the respondents merely pertained to the manner and medium through which the disclosure or publication of the name of the borrower as wilful defaulter would be made. The said expression did not have anything to do with an adjudication of willful defaulter as per the Master Circular of the RBI but only related to the mode of publication.

24. Moreover, even if the said expression related to the mode to be followed in declaration of the borrower as wilful defaulter, which is actually not the case, it would also be contrary to the RBI Master Circular, since the expression-in-question leaves it on the absolute and arbitrary discretion of not only the RBI but the bank itself for the decision to be taken, without following due process as contemplated in Clause 3 of the Master Circular. This modus operandi patently militates against the underlying principle of Clause 3 of the Master Circular and is de hors the same.

25. The purported Recovery Division Circular No. 22/2015 dated August 31, 2015, issued by the Recovery Division of the respondent no.1-bank itself, at least so far as it relates to Clause 5.1 therein, which has been quoted above, is de hors the Master Circular itself and should be struck down on such ground alone.

26. However, the notice impugned in the present writ petition went one step beyond Clause 5.1 of the Recovery Division Circular, insofar as the said Circular stopped at giving the alleged defaulter ten days' time to rectify the default and to indicate that the bank intends to classify it as wilful defaulter, whereas the respondent no.1, in the impugned notice, was over-zealous in not only stopping at communicating such intention but also threatened to disclose or publish the name of the borrower as wilful defaulter and also warned the borrower of the implications thereof.

27. This was not only uncalled-for and unwarranted, but also went beyond Clause 5.1 of the Recovery Division Circular itself.

28. However, a closer scrutiny of Clause 5.1 reveals that it was not squarely contrary to the Master Circular of the RBI, since the clause-in-question provided that only on classification of an account as NPA and subsequent identification of the specific events/transactions "perceived to have constituted" as wilful default, the branches were advised to call upon the borrowers, giving them ten days' time to rectify the default. The following consequence was that the bank would intend to classify them as wilful defaulters

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, which leaves the leeway for the Master Circular to be followed subsequently by the formation of an Identification Committee as contemplated in Clause 3(a) and the subsequent steps being taken in terms of the RBI Master Circular. As such, this court stops short of striking down Clause 5.1 of the Recovery Division Circular No.22/2015 dated August 31, 2015 of the respondent no.1-bank. 29. Yet, the notice impugned in the present writ petition was categorically contrary to not only the Master Circular dated July 1, 2015 of the RBI but even beyond the contemplation of the Recovery Division Circular dated August 31, 2015, as encapsulated in Clause 5.1 thereof. 30. Hence, the impugned notice dated December 16, 2019 was de hors the law and against the principles of natural justice, particularly the doctrine of audi alteram partem. As such, the said notice, not being tenable in the eye of law, is required to be set aside. 31. Accordingly, W.P. No. 12 of 2020 is allowed on contest, thereby quashing the notice dated December 16, 2019 issued by the respondent no.1-bank to the petitioners, which notice is annexed at page 23 of the instant writ petition, as annexure P-1. 32. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law, in the event the respondents find it necessary, to identify the petitioners as wilful defaulters in consonance with Clause 3 of the Master Circular of the RBI dated July 1, 2015. 33. There will be no order as to costs. 34. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Shreyas Sinha Versus The West Bengal National University Of Juridical Sciences & Others Supreme Court of India
07-09-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore & Another Versus M/s. Syndicate Bank Central Accounts Department, Manipal High Court of Karnataka
07-09-2020 District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Durga Branch, Varanasi, Through Its Branch Manager & Another Versus Leelawati Devi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 MS Industries & Spirits (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-09-2020 Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Patna Chapter, through its Convener Sri Jatindra Kumar Lall, Patna, Bihar Versus The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
31-08-2020 Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, CG 492013 Versus Meghraj Pathak, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 Dr. Vijay Mallya Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Jigeshwar Prasad Deshmukh & Another Versus Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Durg (CG) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 National Highway Authority of India Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 Usha Ramachandran Versus Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Anna Nagar (East) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 M/s. Narmada Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pramod Gendre, Chhattisgarh Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-08-2020 K. Manikkan, Railway Liason Officer, Malabar Cements Limited, Walayar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Industries (H) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-08-2020 Indian Overseas Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager Versus The District Collector & District Magistrate, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Sudhir Kumar Patodia Versus Union Bank of India High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-08-2020 Josephine Ancilda Versus HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 Sri Nandhanam Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vellore District rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its General Manager, Banking Ombudsman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 Amal Peterson Versus The Authorized Officer, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 National Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttar Pardesh & Another Versus M/s. Khandelwal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 The Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai & Others Versus P.C. Unnikrishnan, Rural Marketing & Recovery Officers, State Bank of India, Kollam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 T.V. Maniyappan & Another Versus Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Bank of India, Represented through its Chief Manager Versus The District Magistrate, District Collector, Virudhunagar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-08-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai Versus Vijaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus Paneerselvam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 The Managing Committee, (Under Order of Suspension), The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Highways Authority of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 Bank of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Balaprasad Bansilal Biyani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Balaji Rexime Goods Versus Assistant Commissioner & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 M/s. Rajesh Export Limited, Represented by its Chairman Rajesh Mehta Versus Reserve Bank of India & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 State Bank Of India Mini Secretariat Through Its Branch Manager Hisar Haryana Versus Sukh Dass National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Vardhaman Mahila Co-op. Urban Bank Limited Versus A. Vijaya Kumari & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-07-2020 Manohar Bandopanth Belekar Versus Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Vadgaon Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Edelweiss Broking Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalorre Versus B. Muthusamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. Versus National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Nikhil Singhvi Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-07-2020 Balaji & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pattabiram Range, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versis Baby & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 Rakesh Wadhwan, Shareholder (Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd.) Versus Bank of India, Bandra, & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
09-07-2020 New Nagpur Mahila Gramin Vikas Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Another Versus Suman Balaji Thakre National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 Packiyalakshmi Versus Joint Registrar/Managing Director, The Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Tirunelveli & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2020 M/s. Shri Balaji Wash Versus Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Another High Court of Delhi
03-07-2020 Axis Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Punjab Versus Usha Arora & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Kejriwal Mining Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Allahabad Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 M.P. Satheesan, Senior Manager (Retired), Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Kannur Versus The Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by General Manager, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
22-06-2020 Sushma Kumari Versus The Bank of India, Bandra (E) Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
22-06-2020 Bank of Baroda Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
19-06-2020 Toronto-Dominion Bank Versus Young Supreme Court of Canada
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Ram Avtar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
18-06-2020 State Bank of India, Bombay Thru. Chairman & Others Versus S.B. Singh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2020 Subhash Mehta Versus HDFC Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
16-06-2020 Dr. Vijay Mallya Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-06-2020 State Bank of India Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Piara Ram Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta