Calcutta High Court
M/S. Swastik Agency vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2019
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
OD-1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WP No. 181 of 2019
M/S. SWASTIK AGENCY
VERSUS
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 11th April, 2019
Appearance:
Mr. S. Das, Adv.
Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Adv.
Ms. Sumeet Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Himadri Roy, Adv.
The Court :- The petitioner seeks a direction upon the Bank to disburse the
entire credit facilities as sanctioned and not to take any coercive measure to
recover any amount already disbursed.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
was granted credit facilities. On the basis of the sanction granted the petitioner
arranged its affairs. The petitioner has altered his position to his prejudice on the
basis of sanction granted. The petitioner expended various amounts for setting
up of the project. The Bank, however, did not disburse the entire amount. The
petitioner suffered losses. The Bank is not entitled to take coercive measure for
2
the purpose of recovery till such time the Bank fulfils its commitments under the
sanction granted. He relies upon (1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 379 (Gujarat
State Financial Corporation-Versus-Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) in support of the
contention that the writ petition for specific performance is maintainable.
The Bank is represented.
It appears from the records made available to Court that, the petitioner
was granted certain credit facilities by the Bank. The Bank considered it prudent
to recall the credit facilities without disbursing the entire sanctioned amount. As
a Writ Court, I am not called upon to substitute of my wisdom with that of the
lender. The Bank as a lender, is entitled to deal with the money lent and
advanced in the manner it deems appropriate. In the present case, the Bank is
unwilling to disburse the balance sanctioned amount. Such action of the Bank
can at best result in damages. A writ Court need not enter into such arena as
disputed questions of facts are involved which will require oral evidence to be
taken. The parties can be asked to seek their remedies before the appropriate
forum.
Gujarat State Finance Corporation (supra) is of the view that, where a
Government undertaking acts arbitrarily in refusing to grant sanctioned loan to
an entrepreneur, a writ petition is maintainable. In the facts of the present case,
it would be proper to come to the conclusion that, the action taken by the Bank
is arbitrary.
No interference is called for.
WP No. 181 of 2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
3
Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ
petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.