Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The petition impugns the demand by the Respondent Bank of "pre-payment charges" without there being a provision therefore in the Loan Agreement. Notice of the petition was issued and vide interim order dated 21st December, 2010, the Respondent Bank was restrained from downgrading the loan account of the Petitioner and/or reporting the default alleged of the Petitioner in payment of pre-payment charges to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) or to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Petitioner thereafter applied for release of the security deposited with the Respondent Bank averring that while the security was furnished to secure the loan of ` 1,000 crores which stands pre-paid and the demand now remaining and impugned is only of pre-payment charges of ` 20 crores only. Certain proposals for amicable interim arrangement to the said effect were discussed between the parties but without any success. During the course thereof, on suggestion of the senior counsels for the parties, arguments on the writ petition itself were heard.

2. The challenge by the Petitioner is on the grounds:

(i). that even though the entire loan amount together wi