Wilful defaulter notices sustained where advance hearing opportunities were given and the company avoided appearance.

Proceedings to declare a company a wilful defaulter were not quashed where advance notice, disclosure of documents, and repeated opportunities for personal hearing had been given. The court found that the company did not avail those opportunities and instead avoided appearance, so the challenge based on alleged denial of reasonable hearing and inconsistency with the RBI master circular was premature. Authorities cited on absence of hearing or reasons were held inapplicable on the facts, and the notices were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices initiating proceedings to declare the petitioner company a wilful defaulter were liable to be quashed for want of prior reasonable hearing and for being contrary to the RBI master circular.

Analysis: The petitioner company had been given advance notice to appear before the relevant committee, the documents were furnished, and repeated opportunities were extended for personal hearing. The record also showed that the petitioner company did not avail those opportunities and instead avoided appearance. In these circumstances, the challenge was held to be premature, and the cited decisions on denial of hearing or absence of reasons were found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The notices were not quashed and the writ petition failed.

---