Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SUNIL BENIWAL
A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra S/o Ram Chandra, Station Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan) – Respondent
ORDER:
SUNIL BENIWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned award dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner (Rajasthan), in Application no.123/2022 may kindly be quashed and set- aside and the application filed by the applicant/respondent under section 22(C)(1) of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Annexure-2) may kindly be rejected as such.
Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deems proper and just in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.”
2. The facts, in nutshell, as narrated in the present writ petition, are that the petitioner-Bank herein provided loan amounting to Rs.60 lacs on 31.01.2019 to the respondent. An application was submitted by the respondent for foreclosure of the loan account. The respondent repaid the entire loan amount, however, since the payment was made prior to the stipulated timeline, the petitioner-Bank levied pre-payment charges including interest and penalties. Being aggrieved by the pre-payment charges amounting to
Foreclosure charges can be imposed on business loans as they fall outside the RBI's prohibitive circulars for home loans; acceptance of contract terms binds the debtor.
The court ruled that foreclosure charges on business loans are valid and borrowers are bound by the terms of the sanction letter, regardless of any claim of protest during payment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an individual borrower to repayment of prepayment charges as per RBI Circulars, and the estoppel of the bank from demanding s....
Point of law: It would thus be seen that there are no disputed questions of fact requiring trial or otherwise a need to relegate the parties to the suit. It may also be mentioned that in the present ....
A sole proprietorship and its owner are legally indistinct, making RBI's prohibition on foreclosure charges applicable to sole proprietors under floating rate loans.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners availed the loan as partners of the partnership firm and not as individual borrowers, and therefore, the notification dated 14....
Guidelines – Once such guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India are issued the same is binding on the opposite parties/Respondents/LIC and any clause in the loan agreement to the contrary cannot come ....
A sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity from its owner and is treated as an individual for legal purposes, affecting the applicability of foreclosure charges.
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
