Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J
M/s.Royal Classic Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Canara Bank Mid-Corporate Branch – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's banking history with canara bank. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. arguments against the pre-payment penalty. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's observation on loans under the gecl scheme. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 39) |
| 4. legal rules on pre-payment penalties. (Para 34 , 35 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. writ petitions' conclusions and directives. (Para 48) |
ORDER :
While W.P. No.19596/2023 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the letter of the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay pre-closure charges and also direct the 1st respondent to return the deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) lying with the 1st respondent, W.P. No.32421 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 1st respondent to refund the sum of Rs.52,56,458/- which has been levied/debited towards various charges and penalties in respect of the account of the petitioner with the 1st respondent bank upon transfer of the loan account to Federal Bank.
2. The petitioner is a CRISIL-A rated company which had its banking with Canara Bank, Tirupur, since the year 2005 and it has an unblemished track record with the bank. Till recently, the
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
