Poornima Kaur Khehra 17010223102 Project Submission

Assignment 1-
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd vs Union of India & 4 others
Financial and Systemic Fraud
Submitted by-
Poornima Kaur Khehra
Division- D, Programme- BA.LLB, Batch- 2017-2022
PRN- 17010223102
Of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
In the
Month of February, 2022
Under the guidance of
Mr. Sudhir Verma

CERTIFICATE
The Assignment 1 submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Financial and
Systemic Fraud as part of Internal assessment is based on my original work carried out
under the guidance of Mr. Sudhir Verma in month of February 2022. The research work
has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged.
I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if
any, detected later on.
Poornima Kaur Khehra
Date: 3/02/2022
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I do hereby declare that this assignment is my original work and it would not have been
possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend
my sincere thanks to all of them.
I express my sincere gratitude to Mr Sudhir Verma- faculty of Financial and systemic

fraud for his guidance and motivating us for doing this project.
At last, I would like to thank my friends and seniors for extending their kind cooperation
to bring this project in a nice form.
I again would like to thank everybody whose contribution in any form has been useful
for me to make a difference.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd vs Union of India & 4 others
Court- High Court of Bombay
Bench: V.M. Kanade, B.P. Colabawalla
Citation- WPL/1684/2015
Facts-
Petitioner (Kingfisher Airlines ltd.) received a notice on 19/08/2014 under the circular
issued by RBI dated 1/7/2014 informing that committee of Respondent no.2 had
approved the proposal of respondent no.2 bank to include the petitioner in the list of
willful defaulters as per the guidelines of the RBI circular. Thereafter on 22/10/2014
petitioner filed their representation requesting the respondent to permit petitioner to
appoint an advocate to represent the petitioner before the Grievance Redressal
committee. The request was turned down by respondent in letter dated 10/11/2014 after
which the petitioner filed a writ petition. Where the respondent gave an undertaking
before the division bench that they would not conduct hearing before the grievance
redressal committee until the writ is disposed of. Whereas on 1/6/2015 respondent sent
a letter calling petitioner to attend hearing before the committee in person without any
representation. This letter lead to the petitioner filing a petition hence this case in form
of writ petition under orginal civil jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay.
Issue-
1. Whether denial of legal representation to the petitioner before the Redressal

Grievance committee amount to violation of principles of natural justice?
Rule-
1. Circular issued by Reserve Bank of India on 01/07/2014 giving instructions and

guidelines on matters related to willful defaulters.
Analysis-
The argument on behalf of petitioner was-
First, it was submitted that the committee was supposed to decide whether the
petitioner is guilty of willful default and that this issue was not merely about fact finding
rather crucial and complex legal questions including the mens rea of the petitioner.
Secondly the petitioner submitted that where the decision could have serious civil and
pecuniary consequences,it would be violative of principles of natural justice to deny
legal representation for this judgement of apex court in Indian Photographic Company
Ltd vs. Saumitra Mohan Kumar was cited where the court gave importance to Lord
Dennings observation in Pett v Greyhound Racing association ltd. AER 545 where he
said “If justice is to be done, he ought to have the help of someone to speak for him. And
who better than a lawyer who has been trained for the task?”
Thirdly, he relied on judgment of apex court in C.L. Subramaniam vs Collector of

customs, Cochin (1991) 2 SCC 283 where it was held that legal representation is to be
allowed even if the opposition is not represented by a legal practitioner but by a trained
prosecuter.
Fourthly, it was contended that the committee is quasi judicial body thus has a duty to
perform judicially.
Fifthly, it was submitted that RBI circular did not contain any prohibition clause
regarding engagement of an advocate.
The respondent thus submitted that the circular issued by RBI fixes the parameters for
declaration of willful defaulters thus the committee is to make the decision just on the
basis of documents and not arguments ad that the committee does not have any legal
practitioner or legally trained person. It was added that the show cause notice was just
based on facts and not on any complex legal questions. Furthermore the RBI circular
just required a written reply and the personal hearing was just a matter of discretion of
the committee. Therefore there was no violation of natural justice since their was no
right of personal hearing.
Also adding that the judgement of C.L. Subramaniam vs. Collector of customs, Cochin
are distinguishable from this case thus no reliance can be placed upon them.
Moreover apex court has held in various cases like N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg
co. ltd and Bharat petroleum corporation ltd vs Maharashtra Gegeral Kamgar Union and
others the apex court has held that there is no absolute right to be represented by lawyer
in departmental proceedings unless the issue at hand is of complex nature in which case
a lawyer could be permitted.
The bench held that in the current case from the conspectus of cases that have been
cited no straight jacket formula could be derived thus whether a person will be allowed
legal representation will depend on facts and circumstances of each individual case.
The court taking into consideration the urgency of the matter was of the view that legal
representation should not be allowed to the petitioner as a matter of right. But keeping
in mind that this matter is of huge amount of public money and if the petitioner is
denied the right to legal practitioner he may challenge this order in apex court, the court
held that if the petitioner gives an undertaking that if it is allowed legal representation
the advocates will complete their submissions within one day then only the petitioner
will be permitted to engage an advocate. This formula was opted by Delhi high court in
Kingfisher Airlines ltd. Vs Union of India and others in WP 5532/2014.
Conclusion-
Therefore, the high court partly allowed the writ petition under aforesaid terms.
This decision by the high court is praise worthy as the decision was made keeping in mid
the realistic implications of the decision. Had the court held that no legal representation
could be allowed to the petitioner it would have definitely ended in an appeal in
supreme court which would have just wasted more time considering matters like the
current one are very time sensitive this is a great decision as neither will the time be
wasted in appeals nor in submissions by advocates of petitioners because of the terms
that submission has to be made within a day.
17010223102
by Poornima Kaur Khehra
Submission date: 03-Feb-2022 11:34PM (UTC+0530)

Submission ID: 1754272369
File name: Kingfisher_Airlines_Ltd_vs_Union_of_India.doc (29.5K)
Word count: 937
Character count: 4781
1
17010223102
ORIGINALITY REPORT
3 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
0%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
3%
STUDENT PAPERS
PRIMARY SOURCES
1
Submitted to University of Hull
Student Paper 3%
Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches Off

Exclude bibliography Off

Poornima Kaur Khehra 17010223102 Project Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poornima Kaur Khehra 17010223102 Project Submission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poornima Kaur Khehra 17010223102 Project Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 1-

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd vs Union of India & 4 others

Financial and Systemic Fraud

Poornima Kaur Khehra

Division- D, Programme- BA.LLB, Batch- 2017-2022

Of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

Month of February, 2022

Under the guidance of

Mr. Sudhir Verma

Poornima Kaur Khehra

I express my sincere gratitude to Mr Sudhir Verma- faculty of Financial and systemic

Bench: V.M. Kanade, B.P. Colabawalla

1. Whether denial of legal representation to the petitioner before the Redressal

1. Circular issued by Reserve Bank of India on 01/07/2014 giving instructions and

The argument on behalf of petitioner was-

Thirdly, he relied on judgment of apex court in C.L. Subramaniam vs Collector of

Submission date: 03-Feb-2022 11:34PM (UTC+0530)

Exclude quotes Oﬀ Exclude matches Oﬀ

You might also like