SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Krishna S.Dixit, J.
Nitesh Residency Hotels Pvt.ltd - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2004 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 08-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
K Suman, Advocate, Siddharth Suman, Advocate, H.Shanthi Bhushan, Advocate, Dhyan Chinnappa, Advocate, Rithika Ravikumar, Advocate

The duty of the customer to act honestly towards the bank and the limited scope of judicial review over banking decisions.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Loan Recall - Companies Act, 1956 - SARFAESI Act, 2002 - [BANK LOAN RECALL] - [LOAN RECALL] - [Companies Act, 1956, SARFAESI Act, 2002] - The court declined indulgence in the matter due to the private nature of the bank's actions and the contractual relationship between the bank and the borrower. The court emphasized the duty of the customer to act honestly towards the bank and the limited scope of judicial review over banking decisions. The petitioner's conduct of withholding crucial information from the bank was deemed culpable, and the court found the writ petition devoid of merits, dismissing it with costs.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private limited company, obtained credit facilities from a bank to develop a hotel. The bank recalled the credit facilities due to defaults committed by the petitioner, resulting in a debt of Rs.358,39,49,064.00. The petitioner challenged the recall and the consequent SARFAESI Notice, claiming that the bank was not an instrumentality of the state and that it had an alternate remedy against the bank's actions. The bank contended that the petitioner had defrauded the bank and had not approached the court with clean hands.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bank's actions were private in nature and declined to intervene, emphasizing the duty of the customer to act honestly towards the bank. The court also highlighted the limited scope of judicial review over banking decisions and deemed the petitioner's conduct of withholding crucial information from the bank as culpable. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merits and imposed costs on the petitioner.

Issues: The issues involved the nature of the bank's actions, the duty of the customer towards the bank, the scope of judicial review over banking decisions, and the petitioner's conduct in approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the private nature of the bank's actions and the duty of the customer to act honestly towards the bank. It highlighted the limited scope of judicial review over banking decisions and deemed the petitioner's conduct of withholding crucial information from the bank as culpable. The court found the writ petition devoid of merits and dismissed it with costs.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merits, and imposed costs on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner a heavy borrower, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Letters dtd. 5/2/2021 (Annexure-F) and 7/4/2021 (Annexure-J) whereby all credit facilities extended to him have been recalled. He also lays a challenge to the consequent SARFAESI Notice at Annexure-L; all these are issued by the 3rd Respondent- lender Bank inter alia on the ground of defaults committed by the petitioner eventually resulting into its "debt being classified as non performing asset". The net effect of all these impugned instruments are that the petitioner has to discharge in full all his outstanding liabilities aggregating to Rs.358,39,49,064.00 (Rupees Three Hundred and Fifty Eight Crore Thirty Nine Lakh Forty Nine Thousand & Sixty Four) only, computed as on 16/7/2021 with interest as agreed, accruing thereon.

2. After service of notice, the Union of India is represented by the Asst. Solicitor General; the 2nd respondent RBI has chosen to remain unrepresented; the

3. rd respondent - lender Bank is represented by its private counsel who has filed the Statement of Objections dtd. 27/5/2022 opposing the petition. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the lender Bank, makes submission in justification of the impugned proceedings and the cumulative reasons on which they have been structured. He also seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground that petitioner has perpetrated sharp practices unbecoming of a scrupulous borrower and a culpable litigant. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

    (a) Petitioner, a Private Limited Company is incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, with the sole purpose of developing sa hotel namely, 'The Ritz-Carlton-Bangalore', for providing accommodation and worldly services. The Hotel was sought to be established on a property which petitioner had obtained by a registered lease deed dtd. 11/1/2007 with ARCHDIOCEASE of Bangalore. On the assurances and representations of the petitioner, the third respondent - Bank sanctioned the credit facilities which would include a Term Loan of Rs.291, 00, 00, 000.00, granted in March, 2016. The leasehold rights were furnished by way of security for the repayment coupled with certain personal guarantees and hypothecations.

      (b) The Loan Agreement was entered into on 31/3/2016 and the petitioner had executed a Deed of Undertaking on the same date. Petitioner had specifically declared that it has a clear and marketable title and, transferable interest over the Hotel Ritz-Carlton which was free from any prior charge, lien, encumbrance or litigations. However, the said lease was terminated way back in the year 2014 itself and the dispute was in the arbitration proceedings, a retired judge of this Court being the sole arbitrator. The lender - Bank states that it was not given any inkling of the same. Petitioner was also granted an additional Temporary Overdraft facility of Rs.100,00,00,000.00 during the Covid-19 Pandemic pursuant its Letter dtd. 25/11/2020, the lender-Bank being kept in complete darkness as to the arbitral proceedings.

        (c) The lesser vide Letter dtd. 8/1/2021 informed the lender-Bank about the arbitral award passed on 7/11/2020 upholding the termination of lease and rejecting petitioner's Counter claim for a sum of about Rs.600.00 Crores. A challenge to the same before the Commercial Court in COM.AP No. 4/2021, having been rejected the matter is now pending in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. Petitioner having remained in default, its debt came to be classified as NPA. By the impugned Letters, the entire credit facilities have been recalled on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and default. A Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has also been issued. Aggrieved by all this, petitioner is before this Court.

          (d) The respondent - Bank has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the writ petition contending that: the third respondent is not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution

                                                                                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                                                  1
                                                                                  2
                                                                                  3
                                                                                  4
                                                                                  5
                                                                                  6
                                                                                  7
                                                                                  8
                                                                                  9
                                                                                  10
                                                                                  11
                                                                                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                                                  supreme today icon
                                                                                  logo-black

                                                                                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                                                  Please visit our Training & Support
                                                                                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                                                  qr

                                                                                  Scan Me!

                                                                                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                                                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                                                  whatsapp-icon Back to top