M/S Bombay Motor House vs Union Of India on 20 October, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Bombay Motor House vs Union Of India on 20 October, 2020

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

      WRIT PETITION NO.11074 OF 2020(GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

M/S.BOMBAY MOTOR HOUSE
JCB TOWERS, NO.9, 1ST 'B' CROSS
J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR
SRI. RANJIT SINGH                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. M.M. ASHOKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     UNION OF INDIA
       MINISTRY OF FINANCE
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       NORTH BLOCK
       NEW DELHI-110 001

2.     M/S INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
       K.H. ROAD BRANCH
       BANGALORE-560 025
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       BRANCH MANAGER

3.     KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK
       M.G. ROAD BRANCH
       BANGALORE-560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       BRANCH MANAGER
                             2




4.   BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED
     RESIDENCY ROAD BRANCH
     BANGALORE-560 025
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     BRANCH MANAGER

5.   RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
     SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG
     MUMBAI-400 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     GENERAL MANAGER                   ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SMT. K.B. SHREEDEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


                          *********


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2020 REJECTING           THE
AVAILABILITY OF LOAN UNDER ECLGS LOAN TO THE
PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

Sri M.N. Ashoka, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a MSME company. It has its account maintained with the second respondent. As per the Operational Guidelines dated 04.08.2020, Emergency 3 Credit Line Guarantee Scheme is required to be extended to the MSME units. He further submitted that State Bank of India has also extended the said facility to the petitioner. However, 2nd respondent is not following the Guidelines.

2. Smt. Sreedevi K.B., learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that since petitioner's account has been declared as SMA-2, petitioner is not eligible for the benefits as per Clause 7 of the said Guidelines. This submission is refuted by Sri M.M. Ashoka, learned counsel by contending that the said status is not given either by Reserve Bank of India or any Government Agency. He urged that since State Bank of India has already extended the benefit to the petitioner, appropriate directions may be issued to and 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's case.

3. Records disclose that as per Annexure-B, SBI has extended some benefit to the petitioner. The Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Operational Guidelines 4 have been brought into effect in view of the Covid-19 situation. In the circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's request and to extend benefits in accordance with law, also keeping in mind that facility has been extended by State Bank of India also.

Ordered accordingly. Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE sac*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court