Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Sunder Lal Jain

Q: Key Points

Borrower Status: The respondents (borrowers) held a loan account that was classified as a performing/standard asset (not sub-standard or NPA) as on 31st March 2000, remaining performing between 1st April 2000 and 31st March 2001, and was declared NPA only with effect from 31st March 2001.[1000419020002] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000419020004] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 22

G.P.MATHUR, AFTAB ALAM
Oriental Bank of Commerce – Appellant
Versus
Sunder Lal Jain – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Borrower Status: The respondents (borrowers) held a loan account that was classified as a performing/standard asset (not sub-standard or NPA) as on 31st March 2000, remaining performing between 1st April 2000 and 31st March 2001, and was declared NPA only with effect from 31st March 2001.[1000419020002] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000419020004] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

judgment

G.P. Mathur, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2005 of Delhi High Court, by which a direction was issued to the appellant Oriental Bank of Commerce to declare the respondents account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) from 31st March, 2000 and to apply the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines to their case and communicate the outstandings which shall be recoverable by quarterly instalments over a period of two years.

3.The respondents Sunder Lal Jain & another were sanctioned credit facility for Rs.20 lakhs on 12.12.1996. The respondent defaulted in repayment of the amount and their account was declared as NPA on 31.3.2001. On 21.2.2002, the appellant Oriental Bank of Commerce filed a petition against the respondents being O.A. No.21 of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (for short the DRT). The DRT passed a decree in favour of the appellant for recovery of Rs.20,27,862/- along with interest on 14.11.2003. The appellant initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the amount from the respondents and a recovery certificate was issued on 8.12.2003. The respondents did not file any appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Central Bank of India vs M/s. Sharad Rice Industries - 2010 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 123: Treated as bad law (per incuriam). Specific language: "Per Incuriam - Stated prior case was invalid without considering key precedents. Lal Jain ( , 2008 (2) SCC 280".

Central Bank of India VS Sharad Rice Industries - 2010 0 Supreme(Chh) 75: Treated as bad law (per incuriam). Specific language: "Sunder Lal Jain (2008) 2 SCC 280 : AIR 2008 SC 1339 has held to be per incuriam as the decision was without noticing the decision".

Saini And Co Rice Mills VS State Of Punjab - 2009 0 Supreme(P&H) 1559: Treated as bad law (held in ignorance, implying per incuriam). Specific language: "The Division Bench decision ... was also noticed by their Lordships but held to be in ignorance".

Mittal Fresh Food Pvt. Ltd. VS State Bank Of India - Madhya Pradesh (2012): Treated as bad law (per incuriam). Specific language: "Bank of Commerce (supra) is said to be per incuriam and the principles laid down in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) is".

The vast majority of entries (all except those in bad_law and distinguished) treat the case (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280 : AIR 2008 SC 1339) positively as followed, applied, relied upon, or approved. They quote its holdings (often paras 8, 10, 11, 12) approvingly on topics like requirements for writ of mandamus (legal right and statutory duty), bank's one-time settlement (OTS) policies under RBI guidelines not being enforceable by mandamus, and related principles. Representative examples with specific language:

D. S. Mechanical Works VS State Bank Of India - 2008 0 Supreme(P&H) 831: Followed. "Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s. ... time Settlement policy of the Bank under the RBI guidelines as the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Bank of".

Pramod Kumar Rath VS State of Orissa - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 449: Followed. "In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain & Anr. ... As the amount of out standing dues was not paid, the bank started recovery".

Nirav Lalitbhai Shah VS Government Of Gujarat - Gujarat (2008): Followed. "Sunder Lal Jain and Another, AIR 2008 SC 1339 wherein the order of the High Court issuing mandamus directing ... He relied on decision of the Apex Court".

Krishan Kumar Pareek VS State Bank of India - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 531: Followed/relied upon. "Sunder Lal Jain & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1339; and M/s. D.S. Mechanical Works v. ... The Apex Court while deciding the case of Sunder Lal Jain (supra), referred to and relied upon".

Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta VS Sukdeo Ram Yadav - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 103: Followed. "reference may be made to the decision Oriental Bank of Commerce v. ... Sunder Lal Jain and Another (2008) 2 SCC 280 wherein an order passed by the High Court".

UTTAM PRASAD GUPTA VS ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - 2009 0 Supreme(Ori) 130: Followed. "IN Oriental Bank of Commerce v. ... Sunder Lal Jain and Anr. , AIR 2008 SC 1339, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that the guidelines issued".

ASHOKBHAI D NAIK VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA - 2009 0 Supreme(Guj) 611: Distinguished on facts. Specific language: "Thus, the facts of present case differ from the facts in case of Oriental Banks of Commerce and therefore, this judgment also, does".

None. All entries have clear indicators of treatment based on the provided language: either explicit negative treatment (per incuriam/ignorance), distinction on facts, or positive reliance/quotation/application. Cut-off snippets still provide sufficient context (e.g., "relied on", "held as under", headnote summaries reinforcing the ratio) to categorize unambiguously as followed.

2008 Supreme(SC) 22

G.P.MATHUR, AFTAB ALAMOriental Bank of Commerce – AppellantVersusSunder Lal Jain – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

G.P.MATHUR, AFTAB ALAM
Oriental Bank of Commerce – Appellant
Versus
Sunder Lal Jain – Respondent