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

2018 Supreme(Cal) 666

DEBANGSU BASAK
Devendra Surana – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shuvasis Sengupta, Adv., Bishwajib Ghosh, Adv., Avirup Chatterjee, Adv., Balarko Sen, Adv., Somdutta Basu, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that banks are not entitled to charge foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties on floating rate term loans sanctioned to individual borrowers in light of RBI circular May 7, 2014. (!) (!) (!) - The petitioner, though operating as a sole proprietorship, is treated as the same legal entity as the natural person owner; hence, the borrower qualifies under the May 7, 2014 circular. (!) [9000413820015][9000413820016] - The bank was directed to refund Rs. 13.35 lakhs collected as prepayment charges, with interest, and the petitioner was allowed to execute the order as a decree of the court. (!) [9000413820022][9000413820023] - The petition was disposed of without costs. (!) [9000413820024]

What is the effect of RBI circular May 7, 2014 on foreclosure charges for floating rate term loans to individual borrowers?

What is the status of the petitioner as an individual borrower vs. sole proprietorship for the purposes of foreclosure charge eligibility?

What is the court's directive regarding refund of prepayment charges and associated interest to the petitioner?


JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

The petitioners have sought for a direction upon the bank to release collateral securities and issue a 'no due' certificate in favour of the petitioner without imposing any foreclosure/prepayment charges and/or penalties.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner as the sole proprietor is carrying on business under the name and style of Magnum Industries. The petitioner had obtained credit facilities from the respondent no. 1 in terms of the sanction letter dated January 15, 2016. The petitioner had foreclosed the credit facilities. Upon such foreclosure being sought to be made, the bank had unjustifiably claimed foreclosure charges. The industrial unit of the petitioner being classified as small scale by the State of Assam and the petitioner being an individual borrower under the relevant guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the respondent no. 1 is not entitled to levy any foreclosure charges. In support of such contention learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a Circular dated May 7, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, in his usual fairness has
































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top