The dominant issue was whether the petitioner could be treated...

The dominant issue was whether the petitioner could be treated as a "promoter" or otherwise brought within Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (01.07.2015) to sustain a wilful defaulter classification. The Court held there was no admission or documentary material showing the petitioner was a promoter, and the record (including the company prospectus) did not support such status; the matter had to be assessed on the footing that he was only a non-executive director. It further held that mere non-whole-time directorship did not satisfy Clause 3(d) and the bank failed to substantiate any complicity or the exception clause requirements. Consequently, the Review Committee's decision was set aside against the petitioner, the identification decision became ineffective, and the bank was directed to remove his name from the wilful defaulter list and reverse consequential steps within one month - HC