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

1992 Supreme(Del) 430

High Court Of Delhi
PADMALAYA AUTO COMPLES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, FINANCIAL CORPORATION - Respondent
ORIGINAL Petition 88 of 1991
Decided On : 09/01/1992

Advocates Appeared:
N.C.Ranganijan

Financial institutions have considerable discretion in deciding loan releases, determining the value of works executed, and assessing project viability.

Headnote:

LOAN DISBURSEMENT - DELAY - FINANCIAL INSTITUTION'S DISCRETION - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Not Applicable - The court held that a financial institution has considerable discretion in deciding whether to release a particular loan installment, determine the value of works executed for further loan releases, and assess a project's viability considering delays and cost overruns. In this case, no deficiency in service by the State Financial Corporation was established, and the complaint was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant, Padmalaya Auto Complex Ltd., claimed damages for the State Financial Corporation's failure to release loan installments against a sanctioned term loan. The corporation delayed the release due to disputes over the valuation of civil works, refinancing facility issues, and project reappraisal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Financial Corporation had considerable discretion in deciding loan releases, determining the value of works executed, and assessing project viability. No deficiency in service was established, and the complaint was dismissed.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Financial Corporation's delay in releasing loan installments constituted a deficiency in service. 2. Whether the financial institution had the discretion to determine the value of works executed and assess project viability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that financial institutions have considerable discretion in deciding loan releases, determining the value of works executed, and assessing project viability. In this case, the State Financial Corporation's actions were not found to be deficient in service.

Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 2,000 as costs to the State Financial Corporation.

Y. Krishan

( 1 ) THE complainant Padmalaya Auto Complex Ltd. has claimed damages amounting to Rs. 30. 00 lakhs on account of failure on the part of the Opposite Party- A. P. Financial Corporation to release the instalments of loans against the sanctioned term loan of Rs. 41. 8 lakhs in time. In addition, it has prayed for ceriain directions to be given to the Opposite Party for release of the balance of the funds sanctioned, not to charge interest on the amount so far advanced upto the date of release of the balance of funds, to forbear from demanding the repayment of principal, to reschedule the repayment of the loans after the release of the balance of the sanctioned loan, not to charge commitment charges in respect of the balance of amount sanctiotned but remaining undrawn or undisbursed.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant in October, 1986 the Opposite Party State Pinalice Corporation sanctioned aterm loan of Rs. 41. 9 lakhs against the request for a term loan of Rs. 30 lakhs only. The first instalment Of loan of Rs. 10. 45 lakhs was granted in October, 1988. The complainant sought for the further release of the loan in February, 1989 but there was dispute about the value of the civil works executed and against which a further laon instalment was to be released. Eventually a senior Engineer of the opposite Party Corporation valued the civil work at Rs. 7. 5 Iakhs in May, 1989 agaisnt which the Opposite party released a sum of Rs. 4. 15 lakhs only though the amount required was Rs. 10. 45 lakhs as ad hoc second loan instalment.

( 3 ) LIKEWISE there was dispute about the valuation of the further work done for the release of the further amounts of loan instalments but the release of loan instalments was delayed allegedly because of lapse of refinancing facility which the Opposite Party had obtained from I. D. B. I. Eventually the I. D. B. I. extended the validity of the refinancing of the loan by the Opposite Party in August, 1989 but the Opposite Party refused to release the funds.

( 4 ) FURTHER the Opposite Party also did not release Rs. 7. 74 lakhs as a part of the Central subsidy of Rs. 9. 11 lakhs admissible to the complainant.

( 5 ) IN short, the complaint is that the Opposite Party Corporation has starved the complainant of the funds both agaisnt the sanctioned term loan and on account of the subsidy admissible from the Central Government. In fact, the Opposite Party unjustifiably asked for reappraisall of the project on account of the passage of long lime and over-runs on the building costs. After reappraisal the complainant was informed by the Opposile Party to bring in further sum of Rs. 10. 00 lakhs. Therefore. in October, 1990 he made another application for a loan of Rs. 20. 00 lakhs. Though it was cleared for sanction by the Board of Directiors of the Opposite Party in November, 1990, yet no disbursement was made. The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party could not advance the committed loans because of the diversion of the funds to the State unauthorisedly resulting in delay in funds to the Complainant.

( 6 ) THE Opposite Party State Financial Corporation in its rejoinder has stated that for the release of the first ad hoc amount of loan instalment of Rs. 10. 45 lakhs the complainant had been allowed three months time for shifting its registered office from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh and the execution of guarantee agreement by the two Directors within a period of two months. According to the Opposite Party the Complainant company fulfilled neither of the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement within the time allowed. It has further pointed out that as per the original appraisal of the project, the unit should have gone into commercial production by august, 1987 whereas the complainant company failed to complete the legal formalities by that time. These were completed on 29th October, 1988. By then the time within which the refinance sanctioned by the I. D. B. I. could be availed of was pra






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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