Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The action of the bank in identifying the petitioner as a willful defaulter is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon [Santanu Ghosh & Ors. Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors.,2003 3 CalLT 486 (High Court) ], the judgment and order dated February 5, 2019 passed in W. P. No.1399 (W) of 2019 [Pawan Kumar Patodia & Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors.], the judgment and order dated May 3, 2019 passed in W. P. No.7471 (W) of 2019 [Atlantic Projects Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Allahabad bank & Ors.] and the judgment and order dated May 8, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4776 of 2019 [State Bank of India Vs. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]. He submits that, the bank did not follow the procedure laid down under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulter in declaring the petitioner as a defaulter. He submits that, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to contest the decision of the Identification Committee. The composition of the Review Committee is not in accordance with the Master Circular. Therefore, the decision arrived at by the Identification Committee as affirmed by the Review Committee is incorrect.
(3.) Bank is represented.;