SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 587 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on : 25-08-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Rajalakshmi, Shivakumar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mukunth for M/s. Sarvabhuman Asso., Advocates.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 100 - Term loan - Loan Agreement - Disbursement of loan - Decreed - Small Industries Development Bank of India (in short “SIDBI”) is a financial institution under supervision of Reserve Bank of India - Its object is to provide financial assistance to Small Scale Sectors - M/s Annamalai Hotels (P) Ltd, sought Rs.160 lakhs term loan from SIDBI for their hotel project and paid 1% upfront fee - In principle, loan was sanctioned, but before disbursement of loan, sanction was withdrawn by SIDBI - Suit for return of upfront fee filed by M/s Annamalai Hotels was decreed by Trial Court and same was confirmed by first Appellate Court - Against concurrent finding, present Second Appeal is filed by SIDBI - Applied to Deputy Manager of SIDBI at Coimbatore to extend term loan of Rs.160 lakhs to meet part cost of its project of construction of a new hotel complex - After discussions with Applicant, on application for financial assistance under project financial scheme was positively considered by SIDBI and informed Applicant that SIDBI is agreeable, in principle, to grant term loan not exceeding Rs.160 lakhs to meet project for setting up hotel complex at estimated cost of Rs.310 lakhs - In letter dated applicant was asked to furnish within 30 days Board of Director resolution agreeable to enter into a Loan Agreement with SIDBI -Held, bank had pleaded that there was suppression of fact touching upon creditworthiness of one of applicant company promoter - Their inference about the creditworthiness of applicant was not made known to Applicant in time. After issuance of the letter of intent before commencement of disbursement of loan, three events should have followed - First, Board Resolution authorizing any one from applicant company to represent them and sign the loan agreement - Second, execution of loan agreement between the applicant company and SIDBI and Third, payment of upfront fee of 1% and inform schedule of disbursement of loan - Board of Directors of applicant company has passed resolution authorizing a person to represent them - Thereafter in normal course the parties should have entered into loan agreement and based on terms of loan agreement, loan amount should have been disbursed - In this case, last two events never happened - It is clear that money collected under head upfront fee retained by bank without any quit pro quo for more than a year without any assignable reason. Hence, decree passed by first appellate court is to be confirmed - Accordingly, Second Appeal is dismissed with costs - Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the decree and judgment in A.S.No.2 of 2007 dated 23.10.2009 passed by the First Additional District Judge of Coimbatore partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.685 of 2002 on the file of Second Additional Sub Judge of Coimbatore.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. Small Industries Development Bank of India (in short “SIDBI”) is a financial institution under the supervision of Reserve Bank of India. Its object is to provide financial assistance to the Small Scale Sectors. M/s Annamalai Hotels (P) Ltd, sought Rs.160 lakhs term loan from SIDBI for their hotel project and paid 1% upfront fee. In principle, loan was sanctioned, but before the disbursement of the loan, the sanction was withdrawn by SIDBI. The suit for return of upfront fee filed by M/s Annamalai Hotels was decreed by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Against the concurrent finding, the present Second Appeal is filed by SIDBI.

2. For sake of convenience, the appellant/defendant the SIDBI (hereinafter be referred as “Bank”) and the respondent/plaintiff M/s Annamalai Hotel (P) Ltd (hereinafter be referred as “Applicant”).

3. On 18/01/1998, M/s Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. applied to the Deputy Manager of SIDBI at Coimbatore to extend term loan of Rs.160 lakhs to meet the part cost of its project of construction of a new hotel complex at Coimbatore. After discussions with the Applicant, on 05/04/1999, the application for financial assistance under project financial scheme was positively considered by SIDBI and informed the Applicant that SIDBI is agreeable, in principle, to grant term loan not exceeding Rs.160 lakhs to meet the project for setting up the hotel complex at the estimated cost of Rs.310 lakhs. In the letter dated 05/04/1999, the applicant was asked to furnish within 30 days the Board of Director resolution agreeable to enter into a Loan Agreement with SIDBI. The Applicant was also asked to provide a statement of anticipated drawals of loans including probable dates(s) and amounts of drawal(s). To this letter, Annexure I carried the special terms and condition. Under Clause 3 of the Annexure I, the Applicant shall pay to SIDBI non – refundable upfront fee of 1% of the sanctioned loan amount at the time of issue of Letter of Intent. Annexure II, the Normal terms and conditions for grant of financial assistance and Annexure III, the proforma for the Board Resolution.

4. As per Clause 3 In annexure I- Special terms and conditions upfront fee of 1% (Rs.1.60 lakhs) of the sanctioned loan amount (Rs.160 lakhs) was paid by the Applicant, on 05/04/1999, through a demand draft and the same was encashed by the Bank. On 10/04/1999 Board resolution was passed authorizing its Director V.Sampath Kumar to sign on behalf of the applicant. However, the Loan Agreement between the parties was not formally entered and the loan amount was not disbursed. Nearly after one year, in response to the Applicant query, the bank on 27/04/2000 informed the Applicant that the subsequent to issue of the letter of intent dated 05/04/1999, it came to their notice certain vital information having direct bearing on the creditworthiness of the company promoters/directors. Information relating to an associate/sister concern had not been disclosed by the company while applying for the term loan or during the discussions. Therefore, they are constrained to cancel the term loan sanctioned vide, letter of intent dated 05/04/1999.

5. In the above circumstance, the applicant has filed the suit against the Bank for refund of Rs.1,60,000/-being the principal. Rs.57,600/- towards interest at the rate of 12% and Rs.9000/- towards Engineer fees paid to get the project report.

6. The Bank resisted the suit, on the ground that the suit is bad for misjoinder of party. The upfront fee collected is non refundable. It is a prerequ

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top