The main legal point established in the judgment is the potential entitlement of the petitioners to benefits under the master directions of the Reserve Bank of India and the obligation of the bank to comply with these directions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Three persons are writ petitioners in the present writ petition. The first writ petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The other two writ petitioners are natural persons. They claim themselves to be shareholders and directors of the first petitioner. They claim that, they hold the majority shares of the first petitioner. The second petitioner appears in person and seeks to represent the first and the third petitioners.

2. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner enjoyed credit facilities from the second respondent. The credit facilities are primarily two term loan accounts, operations of which were routed through a current account maintained with the second respondent at its now renamed International Business Branch. The petitioners contend that, the first petitioner has a tea garden. The tea garden is located in the Darjeeling district. Darjeeling district faced wide spread riots in 2017. The Reserve bank of India has issued two circulars to cover such aspect. The petitioners draw the attention of the Court to the two circulars of the Reserve Bank of India dated July 3, 2017 and October 17, 2018. According to the petitioners, since, the first petitioner suffered a natural calamity within the meaning of the two circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India, the first petitioner is entitled to the benefits under such two circulars. The bank is obliged to grant the benefits under the two circulars to the petitioners. In the present case, despite, the petitioners approaching the bank for the reliefs under the two circulars, the bank, although, granted some benefits in respect of the term loan account no. 2, did not grant the benefits in respect of the term loan account no. 1. In general, the bank did not grant the petitioners the benefits of restructuring and reliefs on account of interest as under the two circulars. According to the petitioners, the account of the first petitioner cannot be treated as a Non-Performing Asset.

3. The Court is informed that the bank subsequent to the issuance of the electronic Mail dated April 3, 2019, invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners are taking appropriate steps with regard thereto. The petitioners reserve their rights with regard to such proceedings and to take suitable actions before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

4. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, it is limited to the failure of the bank in adhering to the mandatory directions of the two circulars of the Reserve Bank of India.

5. According to the petitioners, once, the benefits that petitioners are entitled to under the two relevant Reserve Bank of India circulars are granted to the petitioners, the account of the first petitioner cannot be classified as a Non-Performing Asset and, therefore, no action of recovery of the loan taking can be initiated by the bank. The petitioners seek interim protection in such factual background.

6. The petitioners draw the attention of the Court to the conduct of the first petitioner vis-à-vis the bank. According to the petitioners, the petitioners paid sufficient amounts to the bank even subsequent to the happening of the natural calamity. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the meeting of the bank at the State Level Bankers’ Committee pursuant to the two circulars of the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioners also draw the attention to the reports of the concerned District Consultative Committee.

7. The respondents are not represented.

8. Prima facie, it appears that, the petitioners are governed by the master directions of the Reserve Bank of India dated July 3, 2017 and October 17, 2018. Those master directions contemplate grant of certain stipulated reliefs to a borrower facing a natural calamity. Prima facie, it appears that, the first petitioner faced a natural calamity within the definition of the two master directions. Therefore, the bank concerned, became obliged