Wilful Defaulters And Criminal Liability
🔍 1. What is a Wilful Defaulter?
A wilful defaulter is a borrower who has the capacity to repay a loan but deliberately avoids doing so. This is considered serious financial misconduct, and in some cases, it may lead to civil and criminal consequences.
⚖️ 2. Legal Definition and Framework
💼 Defined by the RBI:
According to RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (2015), a person or company is considered a wilful defaulter if:
They have defaulted in meeting their repayment obligations to the lender, despite having the capacity to pay.
They have diverted the funds for purposes other than what was sanctioned.
They have siphoned off the funds so that the funds are not available with the unit.
They have disposed of secured assets without the lender’s knowledge.
🧾 3. Legal Provisions Involved
| Law | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Sections 403 (Criminal Misappropriation), 405 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating) |
| Companies Act, 2013 | Section 447 (Fraud), Section 448 (False Statements), Section 449 (False Evidence) |
| Prevention of Corruption Act | In cases involving public servants and banks |
| SARFAESI Act, 2002 | Enforcement of security interest |
| Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 | Action against defaulting companies |
⚠️ 4. Consequences of Being a Wilful Defaulter
Debarred from accessing institutional finance
Can be prosecuted under criminal laws
Directors can be disqualified under the Companies Act
Public naming and shaming
Attachment of property and personal guarantees
CBI/ED involvement in cases involving fraud or siphoning
⚖️ 5. Landmark Case Laws on Wilful Default and Criminal Liability
🔹 Case 1: State Bank of India v. Kingfisher Airlines & Vijay Mallya
Facts:
Kingfisher Airlines defaulted on loans amounting to over ₹9,000 crores. SBI and a consortium of banks declared Vijay Mallya a wilful defaulter.
Key Issues:
Diversion and misuse of funds
Non-cooperation in recovery proceedings
Court's Actions:
CBI and ED filed criminal cases for money laundering, fraud, and conspiracy.
Multiple proceedings in India and the UK for extradition.
Significance:
This is India’s most high-profile wilful default case, leading to enhanced focus on corporate fraud and accountability.
🔹 Case 2: Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015)
Facts:
Activists sought disclosure of names of wilful defaulters from RBI under RTI.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that RBI must disclose names of wilful defaulters in the public interest and cannot hide behind confidentiality clauses.
Significance:
Set a precedent for transparency and public accountability in loan defaulters’ cases.
🔹 Case 3: CBI v. Nityanand Singh & Others (Punjab National Bank Scam Case)
Facts:
Bank officials and businessmen conspired to issue fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs), resulting in a loss of over ₹13,000 crores.
Criminal Charges:
Cheating (Section 420 IPC)
Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC)
Prevention of Corruption Act violations
Significance:
Exemplified how wilful default combined with criminal conspiracy and corruption leads to criminal liability, not just financial recovery.
🔹 Case 4: IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (2017)
Facts:
The company defaulted on loans but continued to display lavish spending and failed to cooperate with the recovery process.
Held:
The court allowed criminal proceedings to continue under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, based on the evidence of intentional default and siphoning of funds.
Significance:
Clarified that corporate borrowers can face criminal trial for wilful default.
🔹 Case 5: SEBI v. Sahara India Pariwar (2012 – ongoing)
Facts:
Sahara collected thousands of crores through optionally fully convertible debentures without following SEBI guidelines and failed to refund investors.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered Sahara to refund over ₹24,000 crores.
SEBI initiated proceedings.
Criminal contempt and money laundering charges followed.
Significance:
Though not a loan default per se, this case dealt with financial fraud, non-compliance, and criminal proceedings, overlapping with wilful default concepts.
🔹 Case 6: RBL Bank v. Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. (2020)
Facts:
The company, led by Jatin Mehta, defaulted on ₹7,000+ crore loans, and was alleged to have diverted funds.
Developments:
Declared wilful defaulter.
CBI, ED, and Interpol red notices issued.
Assets attached under PMLA.
Significance:
Highlighted challenges in cross-border enforcement and coordinated criminal action.
🧠 6. Key Legal Principles from Case Laws
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mens rea (intention) | Must be proven for criminal liability in wilful default |
| Siphoning and Diversion = Fraud | Misuse of funds can trigger prosecution under fraud provisions |
| Transparency mandate | Public institutions cannot hide names of defaulters |
| Directors’ Liability | Directors may be personally liable for fraudulent defaults |
| Multi-agency involvement | ED, CBI, SFIO, SEBI, and RBI may act simultaneously |
📊 7. Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Year | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| SBI v. Vijay Mallya | 2015–present | Declared wilful defaulter; criminal cases initiated |
| RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry | 2015 | Supreme Court allowed disclosure of defaulters |
| CBI v. Nityanand Singh (PNB Scam) | 2018 | Charges under IPC and PCA; arrests made |
| IDBI Bank v. Deccan Chronicle | 2017 | Fraud and breach of trust charges allowed |
| SEBI v. Sahara | 2012–present | Supreme Court enforced refund; criminal contempt |
| RBL Bank v. Winsome Diamonds | 2020 | ED, CBI involved; red corner notices issued |
✅ 8. Conclusion
Wilful default is not just a financial issue—it can become a criminal one when:
The default is intentional.
There is fraud, siphoning, or misrepresentation.
Funds are diverted, and borrowers are non-cooperative.
India’s legal system, through courts and enforcement agencies, is increasingly treating wilful default as a serious economic offence with potential criminal prosecution, especially in high-value cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments