Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Geomax Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director Chava Venugopal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2920 of 2020
Decided on : 27-09-2021
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13 and 13(3-A) sub-section (2) (4) - Petitioner-Company approached respondent no. 3 for Cash Credit loan of under working capital loan facility service which was sanctioned by respondent no.3 on - Petitioner sought enhancement of Cash Credit loan facility from respondent no. 3 which was sanctioned on In wake of covid-19 pandemic, respondent no.2, vide circular issued Covid-19 Regulatory Package permitting all commercial banks to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of all instalments in respect of all term loans falling due between however it was made clear in said circular that interest would continue to accrue on outstanding portion of term loans during moratorium period - Whether there is absolute bar of any remedy to borrower before an action is taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of Act, 2002 in view of non obstante clause under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of said Act and the bar of jurisdiction of civil court under Section 34 of said Act.
Finding of the Court :
Notice under Section 13(2) Act, 2002 was issued on representation was filed by petitioner on and rejection of representation was communicated to petitioner on - Thus, no procedural irregularity appears to have been committed in decision making process by respondent-Bank. Moreover, during pendency of writ petition, respondent no.3 has also issued possession notice to petitioner under Section 13(4) of Act, 2002 which is amenable to challenge before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of Act, 2002 and all pleas raised before Court challenging action of recovery of secure assets can effectively be raised in said proceeding - Court that during Covid-19 period, several High Courts have entertained such writ petitions and therefore present writ petition is also maintainable so as to be considered on merit by Court not convinced with said argument of learned - Court is bound by said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. No exceptional circumstance has been found in present case so as to directly entertain challenge to notices issued by respondent no. 3 under Sections 13(2) of Act, 2002 and consequential possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of Act, 2002 against which petitioner has efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application under Section 17 of said Act before Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Shankar, J.
The judgment is being pronounced today through virtual mode.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-
(ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents declaring that loan agreement between a lender and lendee is an ordinary commercial agreement of which parties thereto are free to negotiate and decide uninfluenced by the dictate of RBI guidelines which can only provide standards to bind the Banks and financial institutions.
(iii) For setting aside the portion of impugned circular dated 27.03.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) as extended by the statement/press release dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) respectively issued by the Chief General Manager of Respondent No. 2 to the extent of terms of circular that the interest shall continue to be accrued during the moratorium period.
(iv) For setting aside the notice dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “the Act, 2002”) by the Chief Manager of the respondent no.3.
(v) For setting aside the decision regarding classification of Cash Credit Loan Account of the petitioner as NPA.
3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner-Company approached the respondent no. 3 for Cash Credit loan of Rs.9 crores under working capital loan facility service which was sanctioned by the respondent no.3 on 23.02.2015. In the month of September 2015, the petitioner sought enhancement of Cash Credit loan facility from Rs.9 crores to 15 crores from the respondent no. 3 which was sanctioned on 08.10.2015. In the wake of covid-19 pandemic, the respondent no.2, vide circular dated 27.03.2020, issued Covid-19 Regulatory Package permitting all the commercial banks to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of all instalments in respect of all term loans falling due between 01.03.2020 and 31.05.2020, however it was made clear in the said circular that the interest would continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period. The respondent no. 2 subsequently, vide circular dated 17.04.2020, announced certain additional regulatory measures aimed at alleviating the lingering impact of Covid-19 pandemic on businesses and financial institutions in India and instructed all Scheduled Commercial Banks and all- India financial institutions not to implement the ‘Prudential Framework on Resolution of Stressed Assets dated 07.06.2019’ in respect of accounts which were within the review period as on March 1, 2020. It was further instructed that the period of moratorium i.e. from 01.03.2020 to 31.05.2020 was to be excluded from the calculation of 30 days- timeline for the review period as also in respect of all such accounts the residual review period was instructed to resume from June 1, 2020 upon expiry of which the lenders were provided the usual 180 days for resolution. The respondent no. 2, vide circular dated 23.05.2020, further extended the moratorium period from 01.06.2020 to 31.08.2020 deferring the interest accrued during the said period. The respondent no. 3 issued letter dated 15.07.2020 to the petitioner threatening to recall its Cash Credit loan account alleging unsatisfactory operation and conduct of account and insufficient credit to cover interest debited in account. The respondent no. 3 also issued a notice to the petitioner dated 30.07.2020 under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 intimating that its cash credit loan account had been recalled pursuant to classification of the same as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.03.2020 and called upon it to pay Rs.15,73,31,486.01/- with further in
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
