JUDGMENT :

Subrata Talukdar, J.

1. The above referred batch of writ petitions, WP 54 of 2012, WP 89 of 2012, WP 90 of 2012 and WP 91 of 2012 (respectively numbered as WP-I, WP-II, WP-III & WP-IV) raise a common issue. Therefore, all the writ petitions were heard analogously and the issue common to all is decided by this common judgment and order.

2. Since WP-I has been principally argued by Ld. Counsel for both the Writ Petitioner and the Respondent/State Bank of India/the Bank, the arguments in WP-I are considered as adopted in respect of the other Writ Petitions, i.e. WPs II, III, and IV. The findings of this Court in WP-I shall accordingly also cover the other WPs (supra).

3. Now, proceeding to the essential facts as argued in WP-I, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1/State Bank of India (SBI) has acted illegally in deducting Pre-Payment Penalty (PPP) from the Company at the time of foreclosure of its Term Loan (TL) account with the SBI prior to its Maturity.

4. It is submitted that the Petitioners/Companies in all three WPs (supra) are engaged in the business of real estate. The petitioners in all the WPs approached t