Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T.ASHA
South India Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Director Mr.Nawaz Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Ministry of Finance Government of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief for moratorium and fund release (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments about eligibility and discretion of banks (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court analyzes the binding nature of rbi guidelines (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed without cost (Para 24) |
ORDER :
1. The above writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
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 3rd and 4th 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 Queen
RBI notifications regarding moratorium are advisory and banks retain discretion on their implementation, thus petitioner's claim for extended moratorium was unfounded.
possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 against which the petitioner has efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application under Section 17 of the said Act before the De....
A writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of a public duty, even if it is not imposed by a statute, and the availability of an alternate remedy does not divest the High Court of its powers unde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of RBI Circulars for moratorium due to the pandemic were not applicable to the petitioners as the account was already declared NP....
The RBI's circular provided broad guidelines, and the discretion to grant moratorium rested with lending institutions. Judicial interference in economic policy decisions was limited.
The Court emphasized the Bank's obligation to act fairly and reasonably, and held that the refusal to grant an extension for OTS payment was arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions.
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
