Bombay High Court
Akhil Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Central Bank Of India on 28 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
ssm 1 901-wpl1536.17.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1536 OF 2017
1 M/s. Akhil Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.,
a Company incorporated under
Companies Act, 1956 having its
Registered Office at 6, Mori Road,
Sonawala Compound, Mahim (West),
Mumbai-400 016 and having its
Address at Flat No.3, Ganpat
Niketan CHS Ltd., 18, Khar Danda
Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052.
2 Suniel Pran Mehrra,
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
residing at 556, Ganpat Niketan, 18th
Khar Danda Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai-400 052. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
Central Bank of India,
A body corporate, constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970,
having its Head Office at Chander Mukhi
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and a
Mandvi Branch at Jenabai Building,
Yusuf Meherali Road, Mandvi,
Mumbai 400 003. ....Respondent.
Mr. Umesh Shetty a/w Ms. Sharila D'Souza and Mr. Gopalkrishna
Nayak i/by M/s. Flavia Legal for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rohan Cama a/w Ms. Maneesha Patel for the Respondent.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:05:39 :::
ssm 2 901-wpl1536.17.sxw
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 28 JUNE 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER- B.R. GAVAI, J.):-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard, by consent.
2 The Petition arises out of the peculiar facts and
circumstances. A one time settlement was arrived at between the
Petitioners and the Respondent-Bank vide the terms and conditions
dated 20 January 2017. As per the said settlement, an amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs only) was to be paid by the
Petitioners to the Respondent-Bank.
3 It is not in dispute that when the Petitioners had
approached this Court, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Five lacs only) had already been paid by the Petitioners to the
Respondent-Bank. However, the Petitioners were required to
approach this Court since the bank sought revocation of settlement on
the ground that the post dated cheques are not deposited.
ssm 3 901-wpl1536.17.sxw
4 When the matter was listed before us on 19 June 2017,
the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners made a categorical
statement that the Petitioners are willing to pay the remaining amount
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) along with the interest as
agreed much prior to 20 July 2017, which was the agreed date. It is
not in dispute that the agreed interest comes to an amount of
Rs.71,750/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty
only).
5 During the pendency of the Petition, an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) has already been paid by the
Petitioners to the Respondent-Bank totalling to agreed Rs.40,00,000/-
(Rupees Forty Lacs only). The Petitioners have brought along with
them a Demand Draft of an amount of Rs. 71,750/- (Rupees Seventy
One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only) drawn in favour of the
Respondent-Bank.
6 Shri Cama, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent-Bank submits that, the matter is purely contractual
ssm 4 901-wpl1536.17.sxw
between the parties. He submits that when the terms between the
parties are reduced into writing, the parties are bound to comply with
the same and any deviation therefrom, is not permissible. He further
submits that since the Petitioners have not provided Post dated
cheques, on non-fulfilment of the said conditions, the Respondent-
Bank is justified in revoking the settlement.
7 The Respondent-Bank is a nationalized bank and as such
the State within a meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
It is settled law that every organ of the State is required to adhere the
principles of reasonableness, equity, fairness and good conscience. A
very essence of the settlement is that an amount of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Lacs only) along with the interest, has to be paid by the
Petitioners to the Respondent-Bank. When the Petitioners have in
essence complied with the terms and conditions, merely because the
mode is different, in our considered view, cannot be a ground for the
bank to revoke the settlement unilaterally. In that view of the matter,
we find that the stand taken by the Bank would not stand the
touchstone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We therefore, find that the
ssm 5 901-wpl1536.17.sxw
action of the bank is not justified in law.
8 Rule is therefore, made absolute in the following terms-
a) The Respondent-Bank is directed to act upon the
terms and conditions of the settlement as agreed
vide communication dated 20 January 2017, at
Annexure-A, without insisting upon the condition
of deposit of Post dated cheques.
b) We hold that, since as on date the entire amount
of Rs.40,00,000/- (Forty Lacs only) as per the said
settlement stands paid by the Petitioners and since
the Petitioners have now handed over a Demand
Draft of Rs.71,750/- (Rupees Seventy One
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only) towards the
interest, the terms and conditions as agreed vide
communication dated 20 January 2017, stands
completely fulfilled.
c) We direct the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent-Bank to accept the said Demand
Draft towards the interest dues.
ssm 6 901-wpl1536.17.sxw
d) The Respondent-Bank shall do all that is necessary
in terms of the settlement, so as to release the
Petitioners from the liability of the loan.
e) No order as to costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
