Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
IN THE MATTER OF: SUPERTECH REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 676 of 2022, C.M. APPL. Nos. 50205, 50206, 50208 of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 62 - Effect of novation, rescission and alteration of contract - Empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writs - Writ petition vide Order passed by learned Single Judge, writ petitioner seeks to assail said order by way of instant appeal.
Findings of the Court:
Court does not find any infirmity with order of learned Single Judge - Amended terms of sanction made it very clear that amount had to be paid in instalments after three months of moratorium from date of conveying original sanction to borrower and original sanction - Therefore, first instalment was payable which had not been paid by Appellant - Writ petition was an attempt for renovation of contract which cannot be permitted in a writ petition - It is settled law that High Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot rewrite contract entered into between parties.
Result: Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition vide Order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 15854/2022, the writ petitioner seeks to assail the said order by way of the instant appeal.
2. The facts in brief, as narrated by the Appellant, reads as follows:
(ii) It is stated that a financial assistance of Rs. 735 crores was agreed to be lent by the consortium of Banks and a sum of Rs. 678.22 crore was disbursed. It is stated that a term loan of Rs. 150 crores was also sanctioned by the consortium of Banks.
(iii) It is stated that on 29.09.2018, the account of the Appellant was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
(iv) Negotiations were held between the Appellant and the consortium of Banks. A One-Time Settlement (OTS) was entered into between the Appellant and the consortium of Banks for the sum of Rs. 121.43 crores. The Appellant sought a modification of the OTS and the same was modified. The amount to be paid was reduced from 121.43 crores to Rs. 120.94 crores. The amended terms of sanction reads as under:
| Amended Terms of Sanction |
| Rs. 120.94 crore (LB of Rs. 97.33 crore plus Un-applied interest of Rs. 23.61 crore, total of Rs. 120.94 crore) be accepted in full and final settlement of the dues of A/c Supertech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and payable as under in line with lead bank sanction: |
| 1. Upfront amount Rs. 9.16 crore has already been received in loan account through RERA cut back and own sources in line with Lead Bank UBI. |
| 2. Balance amount of Rs. 111.78 crore will be paid in 24 monthly instalments of Rs. 4.66 crore after 3 months moratorium from the date of conveying original sanction to the borrower. |
| 3. Deferred period interest @ 1 Year MCLR i.e. 7.25% p.a. shall be charged on diminishing balance after 3 months from the date of conveying of original sanction to the borrower. |
| 4. The monthly installment along with interest @ 1 Year MCLR has to be paid in the first week of the month which is to be considered after 3 months from the date of conveying original sanction. |
| Processing fees be waived in line with lead bank sanction. |
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ/order quashing the Impugned Letters dated 11.10.2022, 14.10.2022 and 01.11.2022.
(b) Issue an appropriate writ/order declaring that the moratorium period of three months under the Sanction letter dated 18.08.2022 has to be calculated from 18.08.2022.
(c) Issue an appropriate writ/order directing the Respondent to extend the period of moratorium for a period of 6 months from 19.11.2022.
(d) Pass any other or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”
(vi) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that the writ petition seeks for alteration of the terms of the contract which can only be done by way of mutual consent in terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is this order which is sought to be chall
SupremeToday
High Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot rewrite contract entered into between parties.
A borrower cannot seek modifications of a One-Time Settlement through a writ petition; such alterations must occur via mutual consent according to contractual law.
Point of Law : The terms of one-time settlement scheme cannot also be interfered with or varied to the advantage or disadvantage of any person by resorting to the powers under Article 226 of the Cons....
Point of law: Supreme Court held that if a borrower is aggrieved by any of actions of private bank or ARC, it has to avail remedy under SARFAESI Act; no writ petition would lie and/or would be mainta....
The acceptance of late payments under a One Time Settlement can imply a waiver of strict compliance with payment timelines, and interest clauses remain enforceable.
A valid One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal must be evaluated on its own merits, considering actual repayments rather than solely asset valuations.
![Bhanu Moulds and Dies [P] Ltd. VS Principal Secretary/Chairman and Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3614](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_1.png)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of novation, discharge of liability, and reasonable compensation for delay in payment under the Indian Contract A....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
