DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The petitioners have assailed the imposition of prepayment charges upon the first petitioner prepaying the credit facilities.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the first petitioner had enjoyed term loan facilities from the first respondent. Such credit facilities were governed by the terms and conditions of a sanction letter dated January 11, 2013. He has referred to the terms and conditions of such sanction letter, particularly, the clause relating to prepayment charges. He has submitted that, before the expiry of the time for reset of the interest, a second sanction letter was issued by the first respondent dated March 3, 2013. He has referred to the terms and conditions of the second sanction letter also. He has submitted that, on a true and proper construction of the terms and conditions of the two sanction letters, the first petitioner had repaid the credit facilities without prepayment charges being attracted. He has referred to the various correspondence exchanged between the parties in this regard, including the letters dated June 5, 2015, July 27, 2015 and August 14, 2015 of the first petitioner, and