The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of the Notification dated 14.7.2014 would not be applicable to a loan sanctioned in the name of a Partnership Firm, as it is not an individual loanee.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. DESAI, J.

1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellants - original petitioners challenging the CAV judgment dated 30.9.2022 rendered by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition by which learned Single Judge has refused to treat the present appellants as individual applicants and upheld the decision of the respondent No.1 Finance Company of refusing to grant benefits to the appellants provided under a Notification dated 14.7.2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India by which foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties of term loan sanctioned to individual borrowers were ordered to be foregone.

2. The respondent No.1 - Finance Company had appeared on caveat through learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jal Soni Unwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Bomi H. Sethna. Subsequent to issuance of notice, learned advocate Mr. Amar Bhatt has appeared for respondent No.2 - Reserve Bank of India.

3. Learned advocates appearing for the parties have agreed that the appeal may be heard finally and accordingly, the same is heard finally.

4. The case put forward by the appellants - original petitioners are as under :-

4.1 That both the appellants jointly applied for loan to respondent No.1 Finance Company who by its letter dated 30.3.2012 sanctioned loan of Rs.58,75,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Crores Seventy Five Lacs only) by way of Rental Discount Facility. The rate of interest was floating rate. The interest rate referred in the said sanctioned letter reads as under :-

4.2 The period of loan was 96 months which was revised to 180 months later on. It is the case of the appellants that the said sanction letter dated 30.3.2012 was amended by respondent No.1 by letter dated 13.4.2012 in which three persons, namely, Mrs. Amisha Janakbhai Patel, Mrs. Sharmila Mukeshbhai Patel and M/s. Sai Enterprises (a Partnership Firm in which the present appellants are Partners) were shown as guarantors and certain terms and conditions were revised and accordingly, the loan was sanctioned and thereafter disbursed. The appellants thereafter started paying the installments and when the appellants shown their readiness and willingness to pay the entire loan amount, the respondent No.1 Finance Company by letter dated 1.4.2015 asked the appellants to pay total amount of Rs.51,60,89,236/- including the prepayment charges to the tune of Rs.1,12,55,885/- since as per one of the conditions, on prepayment of loan, such charges were required to be paid by the loanee. Accordingly, the appellants paid Rs.50,16,89,236/- by different cheques. The respondent No.1 issued No Due Certificate on 20.4.2015.

4.3 Meanwhile, having come to know about issuance of a Notification dated 14.7.2014 at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India with regard to levy of foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalty on Floating Rate Loans, the appellants requested the respondent No.1 to refund the prepayment charges to the tune of Rs.1,12,55,855/- with interest @ 12% p.a. The said demand was rejected by respondent No.1 by its letter dated 3.9.2015. Hence, writ petition came to be filed challenging the action of the respondents.

4.4 In response to the notice issued by learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 filed affidavit and opposed grant of relief as prayed for by the original petitioners on the ground that as per the Letter of Amendatory Sanction terms dated 13.4.2012, the present appellants as well as their wives and M/s. Sai Enterprises which is a Partnership Firm had jointly applied for loan and M/s. S