RBI notifications regarding moratorium are advisory and banks retain discretion on their implementation, thus petitioner's claim for extended moratorium was unfounded.

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J.

1. The above writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

“ To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to grant moratorium to the petitioner in accordance with notifications issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 27.03.2020 and 22.05.2020 and consequently, direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,17,14,113/- (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirtee only) along with 12% interest p.a.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that they are a Real Estate Developer engaged in the the business of building residential buildings in and around Chennai and Trichy. They had availed a term loan of Rs.40 crores from the 3^rd and 4^th respondent under sanction letter dated 24.03.2018 for their housing project “SIS Queenstown” at Guduvancherry, Chennai. As per the terms of the loan, the total tenure for repayment of the loan facility was 36 months i.e., till March 2021 with a moratorium for the first 18 months of the repayment tenor. That apart, as per the terms and conditions of the loan, the receivables were to be routed through an Escrow Account maintained. As per the Escrow mechanism, 70% of incremental sales inflows from the residential project “SIS Queenstown” would be adjusted towards the principal portion.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that till the outbreak of COVID 19, they were very prompt in the repayment of the loan. In fact, they were ahead in repayment by a month.

4. On 27.03.2020, the second respondent by way of a notification, granted a moratorium period of three months for repayment of term loans and working capital facility. This moratorium period was for a period of three months from 01.03.2020 to 31.05.2020. This was extended for a further period of three months from 01.06.2020 to 31.08.2020 vide the second respondent's notification dated 22.05.2020. Therefore, a total moratorium period of six months was given to mitigate the burden of debt caused by the COVID 19 pandemic.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that they fall squarely within the eligibility criteria but respondents 3 and 4 had granted a moratorium only for a period of two months i.e., from March 2020 to April 2020, and the term for repayment of the loan was to end by May 2021. The petitioner would submit that as they were facing a financial crunch they had addressed the respondents 3 and 4 vide their email dated 25.06.2020 requesting them to grant a further moratorium period of four months which conformed to the notifications issued by the second respondent. This request was however turned down by the respondents by email dated 17.07.2020. The petitioner even thereafter had made several requests to the third and fourth respondents to grant them moratorium which was however denied. This denial was arbitrary and unjust in the light of the notifications issued by the second respondent.

6. Had the respondents followed the notifications of the second respondent, the period for repayment would have ended by September 2021. Further, the petitioner had also repaid the entire loan with interest by 24.08.2021, i.e., before September 2021.

7. The petitioner would submit that despite the closure of the loan, third and fourth respondents continued to withhold payments made to the petitioner and had appropriated these amounts to the escrow account without passing on the extra amount to the petitioner's current account. The repeated requests of the petitioner to release the deposit amount withheld by the third and fourth respondents and to cancel the mortgage by deposit of title deeds, yielded no results.

8. While so, the pet