9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facilities to the petitioner and in terms thereof, the account of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 was to be taken over by respondent No. 3-Bank. The communication in this behalf was addressed by respondent No. 3-Bank to the petitioner on 22.06.2010, on which date the petitioner paid a sum of ₹ 1,79,238/- as processing fee to respondent No. 3-Bank for taking over of the cash credit account. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3-Bank actually did not take over the cash credit account and the petitioner was left high and dry with the processing fee being appropriated by respondent No. 3. This has resulted in communication dated 11.02.2011 of the petitioner to respondent No. 3-Bank in the following terms:- Wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facility was released. Later we came to know from you that your existing bank Punjab National Bank (at the time of take over of your existing limits) is not agreeing for your account to be taken over. We along with your good self had visited your existing bank Punjab National Bank multiple times to take over the limits, but all the visits were futile. We hereby re-confirm that processing charges on the limits sanctioned is payable by the firm at the time of receipt of the credit arrangement letter. These charges are non-refundable even if the company/firm do not avail the credit facilities, or avail only partially. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, as there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2250 of 2012, M/s A-One Mega Mart P. Limited and others vs. HDFC Bank and another, (2013) 169 PLR 688, in support of this contention has been referred to. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that taking into consideration the nature of functioning of respondent No. 3-Bank, which has been governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and being a Scheduled Bank in the 2nd Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 in the context of the judgment referred to aforesaid, it cannot be said that the writ petition would not be maintainable. Now coming to the controversy in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
