Madras High Court
Dear Lands (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The National Horticulture Board on 10 March, 2022
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P. Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 and 2 & 2 of 2012
W.P.No.14398 of 2011
Dear Lands (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.J.Williams,
No.49, Kamaraj Street, Poodur,
Vaniambadi, Vellore District - 635 751. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The National Horticulture Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
II Floor, Module No.37,
SIDCO Ready Garment Complex,
Guindy, Chennai - 32.
2. M/s.Allahabad Bank,
Rep. by the Chief Manager,
George Town Branch, Chennai.
3. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Madras George Town Branch,
Post Box No.1284, No.155, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai - 600 001 ... Respondents
(R3 impleaded vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in
W.M.P.No.28707 of 2021 in W.P.No.14398 of 2011 by MGRJ)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.14398 OF 2011: The Writ Petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
the first respondent i.e. National Horticulture Board, Gurgaoen, in
NHB/DD(PKS) TN - Subsidy/2010-2011 dated 21.01.2011 and the
consequential proceedings of the then second respondent (i.e.) Allahabad Bank
in GTN/Adv/NHB Subsidy dated 09.02.2011 with respect to the petitioners
account number 50050165245, which is now transferred to the Indian Bank,
Madras Georgetown Branch, Chennai - 600 001, the third respondent herein
and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to close the term loan
account No.50050165245 and discharge the mortgage executed by the
petitioner in favour of the then second respondent which is now transferred to
the third respondent herein after receiving the balance amount, if any, payable
towards the term loan amount without the subsidy amount from the petitioner
as the full and final settlement of the term loan received from the second
respondent which is now transferred to the third respondent herein and to
direct the third respondent to release all the documents to the petitioner.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in WMP.No.28711 of
2021 in W.P.No.14398 of 2011 by MGRJ)
W.P.No.4600 of 2012
Canaan Gardens Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.J.Williams,
No.49, Kamaraj Street, Poodur,
Vaniambadi,
Vellore District - 635 751. ... Petitioner
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
1. The Managing Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India,
Plot No.85, Sector 18,
Institutional Area,
Gurgaon - 122 015. Haryana.
2. The Additional Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
II Floor, Module No.37,
SIDCO Ready Garment Complex,
Guindy, Chennai - 32.
3. The Branch Manager,
M/s.Allahabad Bank,
George Town Branch,
Oriental Building, Ground Floor,
47, Armenian Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
4. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Madras George Town Branch,
Post Box No.1284, No.155, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai - 600 001 ... Respondents
(Respondent No.4 impleaded vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in
W.M.P.No.28719/2021 in W.P.No.4600/2012 by MGRJ)
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.4600 OF 2012: The Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
the first respondent i.e. National Horticulture Board, Gurgaoen, in
NHB/DD(PKS) TN - Subsidy/2010-2011 dated 21.01.2011 and the
consequential proceedings of the then third respondent (i.e.) Allahabad Bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
in GTN/Adv/NHB Subsidy dated 09.02.2011 with respect to the petitioners
account number 50050157303, which is now transferred to the Indian Bank,
Madras Georgetown Branch, Chennai - 600 001, the fourth respondent herein
and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to close the term loan
account No. 50050157303 and discharge the mortgage executed by the
petitioner in favour of the then third respondent which is now transferred to
the fourth respondent herein after receiving the balance amount, if any,
payable towards the term loan amount without the subsidy amount from the
petitioner as the full and final settlement of the term loan received from the
third respondent which is now transferred to the fourth respondent herein and
to direct the fourth respondent to release all the documents to the petitioner.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in WMP.No.28726 of
2021 in W.P.No.4600 of 2012 by MGRJ)
W.P.No.4601 of 2012
Amirtham Gardens Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.J.Williams,
No.49, Kamaraj Street, Poodur,
Vaniambadi,
Vellore District - 635 751. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Managing Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India,
Plot No.85, Sector 18,
Institutional Area,
Gurgaon - 122 015. Haryana.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
2. The Additional Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
II Floor, Module No.37,
SIDCO Ready Garment Complex,
Guindy, Chennai - 32.
3. The Branch Manager,
M/s.Allahabad Bank,
George Town Branch,
Oriental Building, Ground Floor,
47, Armenian Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
4. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Madras George Town Branch,
Post Box No.1284, No.155, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai - 600 001 ... Respondents
(Respondent No.4 impleaded vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in
W.M.P.No.28730/2021 in W.P.No.4601/2012 by MGRJ)
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.4601 OF 2012: The Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
the first respondent i.e. National Horticulture Board, Gurgaoen, in
NHB/DD(PKS) TN - Subsidy/2010-2011 dated 21.01.2011 and the
consequential proceedings of the then third respondent (i.e.) Allahabad Bank
in GTN/Adv/NHB Subsidy dated 09.02.2011 with respect to the petitioners
account number 50050150793, which is now transferred to the Indian Bank,
Madras Georgetown Branch, Chennai - 600 001, the fourth respondent herein
and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to close the term loan
account No.50050150793 and discharge the mortgage executed by the
petitioner in favour of the then third respondent which is now transferred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
the fourth respondent herein after receiving the balance amount, if any,
payable towards the term loan amount without the subsidy amount from the
petitioner as the full and final settlement of the term loan received from the
third respondent which is now transferred to the fourth respondent herein and
to direct the fourth respondent to release all the documents to the petitioner.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in WMP.No.28735 of
2021 in W.P.No.4601 of 2012 by MGRJ)
W.P.No.4602 of 2012
Amutham Gardens Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.J.Williams,
No.49, Kamaraj Street, Poodur,
Vaniambadi,
Vellore District - 635 751. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Managing Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India,
Plot No.85, Sector 18,
Institutional Area,
Gurgaon - 122 015. Haryana.
2. The Additional Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
II Floor, Module No.37,
SIDCO Ready Garment Complex,
Guindy, Chennai - 32.
3. The Branch Manager,
M/s.Allahabad Bank,
George Town Branch,
Oriental Building, Ground Floor,
47, Armenian Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
4. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Madras George Town Branch,
Post Box No.1284, No.155, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai - 600 001 ... Respondents
(Respondent No.4 impleaded vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in
W.M.P.No.28738/2021 in W.P.No.4602/2012 by MGRJ)
PRAYER IN W.P.NO.4602 OF 2012: The Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
the first respondent i.e. National Horticulture Board, Gurgaoen, in
NHB/DD(PKS) TN - Subsidy/2010-2011 dated 21.01.2011 and the
consequential proceedings of the then third respondent (i.e.) Allahabad Bank
in GTN/Adv/NHB Subsidy dated 09.02.2011 with respect to the petitioners
account number 50050160531, which is now transferred to the Indian Bank,
Madras Georgetown Branch, Chennai - 600 001, the fourth respondent herein
and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to close the term loan
account No. 50050160531 and discharge the mortgage executed by the
petitioner in favour of the then third respondent which is now transferred to
the fourth respondent herein after receiving the balance amount, if any,
payable towards the term loan amount without the subsidy amount from the
petitioner as the full and final settlement of the term loan received from the
third respondent which is now transferred to the fourth respondent herein and
to direct the fourth respondent to release all the documents to the petitioner.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 23.02.2022 made in WMP.No.28735 of
2021 in W.P.No.4601 of 2012 by MGRJ)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 24
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
For Petitioner
in all W.Ps. : M/s.N.R.Elango
Senior Counsel
for M/s.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondent : M/s.R.Rathi Devi
No.1 in all W.Ps.
For Respondent : M/s.P.Raghunathan
Nos.2 & 3 for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
in all W.Ps.
-----
COMMON ORDER
The first respondent, National Horticulture Board (NHB), Gurgaon, was
set up by the Government of India in 1984 as an autonomous society under the
Societies Registration Act 1860 with a mandate to promote integrated
development of horticulture, to help in coordinating, stimulating and
sustaining the production and processing of fruits and vegetables and to
establish a sound infrastructure in the field of production. To commence this
project, the first respondent introduced Schemes viz., (1) development of
commercial horticulture and (2) Post-Harvest Management. As per the
Scheme, the entrepreneur shall submit an application to NHB on a prescribed
format about his intent to set up a unit/project. The NHB will then examine the
application and will issue a Letter of Intent. On the basis of such Letter of
Intent, the promoter shall approach the Bank and get his term loan sanctioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
by the Bank and the project should be implemented within a period of two
years from the date of sanction of loan. As per the scheme, the payment of
back-ended subsidy will be made after project has been successfully completed
according to the terms and conditions of the loan/or as per the approved
feasibility-cum-project report, as the case may be.
2. The scheme further stipulates that after completion of the project for
which, Letter of Intent was issued by the Board along with a copy of sanction
letter, appraisal note, statement of release of term loan and proof of land
records, the release of subsidy will be made. The subsidy will be released in
part or in advance to Projects costing upto Rs.10.00 lakhs upon receipt of
request from the bank along with sanction letter. For release of full and final
subsidy, Clause 7 (B) of the Scheme provides as under:-
B. Release of full and final subsidy
Upon completion of the projects, the concerned
Bank/FI/ NCDC would inform NHB that the project has been
completed within the over all guidelines of NHB and shall make a
request to NHB for joint inspection of project which will be
conducted in the presence of promoter.
3. In this Scheme, there is a Clause which is binding the Bank with
regard to adjustment of subsidy released by NHB to the account of borrower.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
The adjustment in Borrower's Account reads as under:-
The subsidy released by NHB to Bank/FI/ NCDC on behalf
of the individual units which are sanctioned assistance, will be
kept in the separate account. The adjustments of subsidy will be
on the pattern of back-ended subsidy. Accordingly, the full
project cost including the subsidy amount but excluding the
margin money contribution from the beneficiary would be
disbursed as loan by the banks. The repayment schedule will be
drawn on the loan amount in such a way that the subsidy amount
is adjusted after the bank loan portion (excluding subsidy) is
liquidated. The subsidy amount in the borrower's Term Loan
account should be adjusted only as a part of the recovery of last
installment which should not be prior to 36 months period from
the date of release of Term Loan.
4. It is also relevant to state that no interest is chargeable on subsidy
portion. Clause with respect to the same reads as under:-
No interest chargeable on subsidy portion: The subsidy
admissible to the borrower under the scheme will be kept in the
subsidy Reserve Fund A/c-borrower-wise in the books of the
financing banks. No interest should be applied on this by the
bank. In view of this, for the purpose of charging interest on the
loan, the subsidy amount should be excluded. The balance lying
to the credit of the subsidy Reserve Fund A/c will not form part of
Demand and Time Liabilities for the purpose of SLR/CRR.
Suitable instructions issued in this regard by the RBI from time to
time would be followed.
5. In respect of the subsidy granted from other central government
agencies, the promoter will not be entitled to the subsidy granted by the NHB.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
In cases of land leased by the promoter, the lease should be minimum for 10
years. In case of plantation crops/fruits, orchards having larger gestation
period, the lease period should be for 15 years. In such case, the promoter will
be entitled to 20% of the subsidy to the maximum limit of Rs.25.00 lakhs of
the project.
6. In accordance with the scheme, the petitioner had initiated a project
for cultivation of Mango and other fruits in a land measuring 55 acres at
Kaverirajapuram Village, Tiruthani Taluk. The first respondent/NHB issued a
Letter of Intent on 23.03.2006. He applied for term loan to Allahabad Bank,
third respondent and sanction letter dated 14.09.2006 was issued for term loan
of Rs.30,00,000/-. The petitioner applied for release of subsidy on completion
of project and the first respondent released the subsidy of Rs.7,22,595/- and
the third respondent has also utilized this certificate. However, on 27.01.2011,
the third respondent indicated to the petitioner that the first respondent/NHB,
by its letter dated 21.01.2011, sought for immediate refund of subsidy amount
granted for the project and called upon the petitioner to repay the entire project
funds released to the bank with contracted rate of interest as per the schedule
of repayment. It is stated by the first respondent that major part of term loan
was repaid after a very short period of plantation and much before the fruit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
bearing stage to which the loan was given with the intention to avail the
subsidy. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ
Petitions.
7. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
the lock-in-period of 3 years mentioned in the impugned letters issued by the
first respondent has not been specified in the entire scheme. There is no
arrangement for lock-in-period in respect of completion of project and
repayment of loans and for release of subsidy. According to him, the entire
action taken by the respondents is actuated by mala fide intention and it is
done for extraneous reasons.
8. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is not a bogus company. It is
a legal entity incorporated under the relevant Statute. Because of the allegation
of the extraneous consideration, returns filed for the assessment year
2004-2005, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were reopened and after
thorough examination, the Income Tax Department has passed orders giving
categorical finding that the Company has acquired lands somewhere in 1980
and 1993 and that they have derived agricultural income to the tune of
Rs.9,92,500/- for the assessment year 2007-2008, Rs.9,46,418/- for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
assessment year 2008-2009 and Rs.13,52,100/- for the year 2009-2010. It was
found that the agricultural income from the said lands has to be considered and
assessed in the hands of the respective owners. Further, there are no evidences,
whatsoever, in the possession of the Assessing Officer to prove that the
sources of the said amounts have flown from Shri.P.D.Dinakaran. Therefore, it
cannot be held that Shri.P.D.Dinakaran has routed his unaccounted income to
the books of the assessee company in the garb of agricultural income.
Shri.P.D.Dinakaran. was appointed to the position of Judge of High Court
Madras in 2003-2004. Prior to that, he was not holding any Government
Office, whereas the lands were purchased by the owners, way back in late
1980s and 1990s before his appointment. Therefore, the petitioner Company is
a legal entity in the eyes of law and had possessed independent income.
9. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that as per the
sanction of term loan, the petitioner completed the project of planting Mango
Trees in the entire extent of land for which, the term loan was secured which is
evident from the report jointly issued by the Assistant Director of the first
respondent Board and the Chief Manager, third respondent and the Assistant
Director (Horticulture), State Government, dated 24.03.2007 after inspection.
For release of subsidy as per the Scheme, the total projects costs, Promoter's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
share, quantum of term loan and subsidy granted, were all specifically reduced
down in the prescribed form and the invested expenditure made towards
production aspects were cataloged under different heads. Thereafter only, it
was certified that the petitioner was entitled to the expenditure eligible for
NHB subsidy to the tune of Rs.38,90,867/- and the eligible subsidy for the
project to the tune of Rs.7,78,173/- and as per the certification, the third
respondent Bank had released the subsidy. Therefore, on completion of the
project, the petitioner is entitled to get the subsidy as per the terms and
conditions of the Scheme. Hence, the letter of the first respondent dated
21.01.2011 for repayment of subsidy amount is illegal.
10. Resisting the contention of the petitioner, the learned counsel
appearing for the Bank would contend that as per the adjustment of the subsidy
to the borrower's account, the subsidy can be released only on completion of
36 months and it should not be before 36 months from the date of release of
term loan, whereas the petitioner has repaid the term loan within a short time
of 7, 8 months to get the subsidy released before 36 months which is contrary
to the terms of the Scheme. A person approaching the Court for equity, shall
come with clean hands, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court with
unclean hands and he availed the loan for the purpose of getting subsidy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
Though the schedule of repayment contracted with the Bank for 10 years, the
release of subsidy after last installment made towards the term loan sanctioned
to him, is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The
petitioner mislead the Bank to get the subsidy released in his favour even
before completion of the project, i.e. to say before rearing fruits bearing trees
before completion of 36 months in violation of schedule of repayment, which
lasts for 10 years. Therefore, the third respondent considered to re-credit the
subsidy amount in the borrower's account and therefore, he is liable to pay
interest on the unpaid amount and without payment of the same, he is not
entitled to get discharge of the mortgage. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of A.P.State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s.Gar Re-Rolling Mills
and Another [ (1994) 2 SCC 647 ]. The relevant portion of the judgment is
extracted as follows:-
"18.There is no equity in favour of a defaulting party which may
justify interference by the courts in exercise of its equitable
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to assist it in not repaying its debts. The aim of equity is to
promote honesty and not to frustrate the legitimate rights of the
Corporation which after advancing the loan takes steps to recover its
dues from the defaulting party. Thus, the intention of the Legislature
in using the expression "without prejudice to the provisions of Section
29 of the Act" clearly appears to be that recourse to the provisions of
Section 29 of the Act is not prohibited, where an order or decree under
Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31 of the Act obtained by the Corporation has not been
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
complied with or honoured by the defaulting concern or is otherwise
insufficient to satisfy the dues of the Corporation and the Corporation
withdraws and abandons to pursue further proceedings under Section
31 of the Act. Passing a money decree for recovery of the outstanding
dues, not being within the jurisdiction of the court under Section 31 of
the Act, the Corporation retains its right to recover its dues by
invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the Act in the manner
prescribed therein notwithstanding any order, final or interim,
obtained by it under Section 31 of the Act by withdrawing from and
abandoning those provisions at any stage of the proceedings. A court
of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal
fraud and the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good
faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to
defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to
evade law. Since, the Legislature enacted Sections 29 and 31 with a
view to aid the Corporation to recover its legitimate dues etc. from the
defaulting party, the saving clause in Section 31 of the Act, preserving
the rights under Section 29 of the Act by giving up the pursuit under
Section 31 at any stage of the proceedings is available to the
Corporation. The two provisions must be so harmonised as to
facilitate the Corporation to recover its dues from the defaulting party.
The Act was enacted by Parliament with a view to promote
industrialisation and offer assistance by giving financial assistance in
the shape of loans and advances etc. repayable in easy instalments. The
Corporation has to recover the loans and advances, so as to be able to
give financial assistance to other industries and unless it recovers its
dues, the money will not remain in circulation for long. It is with this
end in view that Parliament gave the Corporation the right to proceed
under Section 31 of the Act, preserving at the same time its rights and
remedy under Section 29 of the Act, so that the Corporations are not
choked by the defaulting debtors by adopting frustrating or dilatory
tactics in the proceedings in the court initiated under Section 31 of the
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
11. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents. From the perusal of the Scheme, it is noted that as
per the Scheme of Development of commercial horticulture through production
and Post-Harvest Management, a subsidy upto Rs.10.00 lakhs can be released
in advance and in part also. As per Annexure (A-i) of the Scheme, on
submission of proposal of Letter of Intent, the Promoter will be entitled to the
payment of back ended subsidy on completion of project. This Clause does not
define what is the completion of project.
12. According to the petitioners, they borrowed loan for the purpose of
planting mango saplings and to develop a mango grove in his land. On the date
of inspection i.e. on 24.03.2007, the Assistant Director of the first respondent,
the Chief Manager of the third respondent and the Assistant Director
(Horticulture) of the State Government got satisfied with the execution and
completion of the project for which loan was applied and have declared that
the petitioner is eligible for the subsidy for the said project to the tune of
Rs.7,78,173/-. Even before that the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount
granted in his favour by the third respondent in Term Loan A/c.Nos.LN
41263, LN 41425, LN 41476 and LN 41328, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
13. So this Certificate, after field inspection issued by the respondents,
clearly indicates the project was completed. The petitioner has availed the loan
and invested the same for the project promoted by him. It is not disputed that
the petitioner has not developed the lands and that not planted the trees. But he
made all arrangements with an intent to develop the mango grove, which was
physically verified. The actual expenditure incurred was also certified by the
authorities concerned after verifying the documentary evidence. Further, the
eligible subsidy was also quantified and accordingly, the third respondent has
released the same.
14. Insofar as the Clause with respect to the adjustment of borrower's
account is concerned, it is between the Bank and the first respondent. It has
nothing to do with the Horticulturalist. As long as he applies the borrowed
amount for the purpose for which it was lent, he would be discharged of the
obligation cast upon him. It only remains that repays the loan amount and on
completion of repayment, the subsidy amount shall be adjusted. As long as
satisfaction recorded in the instant case as to the completion of project, on the
basis of the field inspection by the authorities of NHB and the Bank remains
intact and repayment of entire loan gets discharged, the lock-in-period of 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
years mentioned in the impugned order will not come into play. In normal
circumstances, a borrower would require more time to get the output of his
hard labour. for repaying the loan amount and hence, he is granted Moratorium
period as well as extended repayment schedule. Whereas as per the Appraisal
Report, it is noted that the petitioner possessed a developed mango grove
yielding fruits and that he wanted to develop the remaining lands further. Had
he wanted, he could have secured the subsidy by showing the fruit bearing
trees in the developed land. But there is no such allegation. The allegation was
that undue pressure was exerted by a third party in favour of the petitioner. But
it is obvious that he had sound financial background for repayment of loan as
borne out by the records and order of Income Tax Department. As long as the
loan is repaid, the Bank cannot have any grievance. Insofar as the subsidy is
concerned, as discussed above, on completion of the project, the petitioner is
entitled to the release of the same. In fact, the completion of project was
certified by the officials of the respondent after field inspection. Therefore,
there cannot be any question of pre-mature release of subsidy. The lock-in-
period of 36 months for release of subsidy has no reasonable nexus to the
Scheme, but, it was made to encourage the borrower to achieve the avowed
object of development of horticulture. Once the avowed object was achieved,
withholding the subsidy or recrediting the value of subsidy is not correct, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
works against the policy of Government to develop horticulture. In fact, this
Court finds that the entire action was actuated with mala fide intention to
connect a constitutional authority to this case. Even the duly constituted
enquiry committee by Parliament had closed the unsubstantiated charges
against the Constitutional authority, finding no materials. To heal the wound,
one should not scratch it again. Delving deep with the matter would
unnecessarily rekindle the bitter incidents and will tarnish the image of a
respected constitutional functionary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to go
analyse the closed episodes.
15. Even assuming, there was pre-mature release, the mortgage was not
discharged by the Bank and the securities furnished to the Bank are still in
force. Even today, the amount for subsidy is still lying intact in the bank
account. After period of 15 years, nobody can say that the petitioner is not
entitled to close the loan after availing the eligible subsidy that too after the
lapse of 36 months as indicated in the Scheme. Furthermore, it is not the case
of the first respondent, at this distance of time, that the farm land was not
developed nor there are fruit yielding trees. As long as the purpose of scheme
is achieved and that the land is developed into one of mango grove, the
promoter is entitled to get subsidy sanctioned for this purpose.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
16. This Court, (Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM) in respect
of a similarly placed borrower, under similar circumstances, considered the
issue in W.P.Nos.4603 & 4604 of 2012 dated 09.12.2021, after recording the
statements made between the parties, directed to release of documents.
17. In the instant case, the lock-in-period of 36 months got over as
early as 2010 and 2015 and that in the year 2022, there cannot be any
impediment for clearing the subsidy and for releasing the document. Therefore,
the impugned orders passed by the National Horticulture Board, Gurgaoen, in
NHB/DD(PKS) TN - Subsidy/2010-2011 dated 21.01.2011 and the
consequential proceedings of the then second respondent (i.e.) Allahabad Bank
in GTN/Adv/NHB Subsidy dated 09.02.2011 stand set aside. Respondent Nos.
1, 3 and 4 are directed to close the Term Loan A/c.Nos.LN 41263, LN 41328,
LN 41425 and LN 41476, respectively and discharge the mortgage executed by
the petitioner. Respondent No.3 is further directed to set off the subsidy
amount and on payment of last installment, to release the documents within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of payment of last installment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
10.03.2022
asi
Note: Issue order copy on or before 08.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
To
1. The Managing Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India,
Plot No.85, Sector 18,
Institutional Area,
Gurgaon - 122 015.
Haryana.
2. The Additional Director,
National Horticulture Board,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
II Floor, Module No.37,
SIDCO Ready Garment Complex,
Guindy, Chennai - 32.
3. The Branch Manager,
M/s.Allahabad Bank,
George Town Branch,
Oriental Building, Ground Floor,
47, Armenian Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
4. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Madras George Town Branch,
Post Box No.1284, No.155,
Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi
W.P. Nos.14398 of 2011, 4600, 4601 and 4602 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 and 2 & 2 of 2012
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
