Court dismisses company's petition challenging bank's NPA classification and wilful defaulter status; legal representation not absolute right.

The court dismissed the writ petition filed by a company challenging a bank's classification of its account as a non-performing asset and identification as a wilful defaulter. The company's request for legal representation before the Grievance Redressal Committee was denied based on RBI guidelines. The court emphasized that legal representation is not an absolute right but may be allowed based on the seriousness of charges and complexity of issues. Since the company had competent personnel to represent it and failed to establish a right to legal representation, the petition was dismissed, directing the Committee to schedule a new hearing.

---

---

Issues:
1. Legal representation before the Committee on identification of wilful defaulters.

Analysis:
The case involved a petitioning company challenging notices from a bank classifying its account as a non-performing asset and identifying it as a wilful defaulter. The company requested legal representation before the Grievance Redressal Committee, which was denied by the bank citing RBI guidelines. The main issue for decision was whether the petitioning company was entitled to legal representation before the Committee.

The court noted that while the request for legal representation was refused based on RBI guidelines, no consideration was given to whether a case for such representation had been made. The court referenced the J. K. Aggarwal case, stating that legal representation cannot be claimed as a right, but may be allowed based on the gravity of charges and complexity of issues. However, the court highlighted that the circumstances in this case, involving a borrower being declared a wilful defaulter, were different from a departmental enquiry.

The court emphasized that the bank officers on the Committee did not need to be legally trained, as the matter primarily involved factual questions about the company's financial handling. The court found that the company had competent personnel like a company secretary or law officers who could adequately represent it. The court concluded that based on the responses provided by the company, there was no right established for legal representation before the Committee, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

As the writ petition was dismissed, the Committee was directed to set a new hearing date. The court stressed that the Committee must proceed in accordance with the law, leaving all other points open for the petitioning company to raise. The judgment concluded without any order for costs, allowing for the provision of a certified copy of the order upon request.

---