Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's account could be classified as "fraud" under the RBI circular without giving a prior notice of hearing, and whether the consequential actions based on such classification could stand.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the fraud classification on the ground that the requirement of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, had to be read into the Master Circular on fraud classification and reporting. The Court found that no prior notice of hearing had been given before the impugned classification. Since the petition raised a challenge to the validity of the classification procedure itself, the absence of a pre-decisional hearing vitiated the action. The Court also made it clear that it was not entering into the merits of the allegations underlying the fraud classification and that the authorities could reconsider the matter afresh after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner.
Conclusion: The fraud classification and all consequential actions were set aside, and the authorities were directed to undertake the classification exercise again only after giving prior notice of hearing to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: A fraud classification having civil consequences cannot be sustained unless the affected person is given a prior notice of hearing in observance of the principles of natural justice.