9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pending. It is for the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the issues. It is for the petitioners to raise those issues before the Debt Recovery Tribunal - In view of the categorical stand taken by the first respondent that they cannot examine the complaints in view of the fact that the relief revolves around the interpretation of the agreement between the petitioners and the second respondent, I am afraid, I am not able to issue any Mandamus to the first respondent to compel them to examine the representation and pass orders. Petition dismissed. - W.P.Nos. 17128, 17134 & 17136 of 2019 And W.M.P.Nos. 16683, 16684 & 16685 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2020 - Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan For the Petitioners : Mr.R. Thiagarajan Learned Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Premkumar For the Respondent : Mr. Chevanan Mohan Learned counsel for M/s. King and Partridge, Mr.E.Om.Prakash Learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Ramalingam Associates. COMMON ORDER W.P.No. 17128 of 2019: In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had availed a term loan of ₹ 23 crores from the second respondent on Lease Rental Discounting Facility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a short term loan of ₹ 12 crores by mortgaging the Residential Apartments and depositing original documents. It was stated that the last disbursement of the loan was on 10.03.2017. It was sanctioned on 26.12.2016. It was stated that a moratorium period of six months had been provided. However, the loan was declared as NPA on 04.05.2018 and a total sum of ₹ 6,92,98,634/- was declared as outstanding. In this connection, complaining about the declarations of the loan as NPA and not granting the aforesaid of the moratorium period, the petitioners had given complaints to the first respondent on 27.05.2019 and 28.05.2019. Since no action had been issued, the Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The writ petitioners also filed additional affidavits pending the Writ Petitions. In the additional affidavits, they stated that they came to know from the first respondent website and press release dated 24.06.2019 that the first respondent had launched a Complaint Management System to facilitate members of the public to lodge the complaint to the first respondent against any of the entities regulated by the first respondent. A copy of the press release was enclosed along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan had been assigned to M/s. Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Private Ltd., by Assignment Deed dated 27.09.2019. It was stated that proceedings under SARFAESI Act was also instituted and possession notice was also served and possession has also been taken. It was stated that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter. 8. With respect to W.P.No. 17134 of 2019, it was stated that the writ petitioner had sought a short term loan of ₹ 3.20 crores. It was stated that the amount was sanctioned on mortgage of a flat. It was stated that the Equated Monthly Installments were not repaid. Therefore, the loan was declared as NPA. It was assigned to M/s. Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Private Ltd., who had also instituted SARFAESI proceedings and it was stated that possession has also been taken. 9. With respect to W.P.No. 17136 of 2019, it had been stated that the writ petitioner had availed a short term loan of ₹ 12 crores and had mortgaged the properties towards the said loan. Since the amount was not repaid. It was classified as NPA on 24.05.2017 in accordance with Reserve Bank of India guidelines. It was stated that even in this case, SARFAESI proceedings had been instituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the credit related issues are mostly deregulated. The RBI had advised Banks to have documents of investment policy, loan policy, loan recovery policy etc to be prepared and duly vetted by the bank's Board of Directors. The banks are required to take credit decisions based on their internal assessment and the commercial viability of the loan within their Board approved policies and regulatory guidelines. It is submitted that the banks could decide on the commencement of moratorium period. It is for the second respondent bank to clarify the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned agreed with the borrower. 4. In addition to the above, this respondent-1-RBI deems it necessary to bring to the attention of this Hon'ble Court that under Section 47A of the Banking Regulation Act, (B.R Act) it deals with the powers of the RBI to impose monetary penalties which could be imposed for specific defaults/contraventions made by a banking company referred to under Section 46(2), (3) and (4) which are applicable or invoked for specific violations/defaults committed under the provision of B.R.Act. This also includes violation/non-compliance of directions issued by Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged is excessive, usurious or opposed to public policy. 14. Reliance was also made on (2009) 8 SCC 257 {Sardar Associates Vs. Punjab Sind Bank} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, once again relied on the Judgment referred above, namely, (2002) 1 SCC 367 {Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra} and had also again referred to paragraph No. 55(5) which has been extracted above. 15. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on (2016) 3 SCC 525 {Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N.Mistry ,} wherein it had been stated as follows in paragraph No. 62:- 62 . RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of trust between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and discl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent's service with the bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 17. Further reliance was placed on (2010) 8 SCC 110 {United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others} , wherein it had been stated as follows in paragraph No. 55: 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. 18. In view of the specific stand taken by the first respondent that each individual bank have their own guidelines with respect to the moratorium period an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
