Calcutta High Court
State Bank Of India And Anr vs Varun Roshan Kohli And Ors on 19 April, 2023
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
OD - 8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/104/2022
WITH
WPO/2366/2022
IA NO. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2023
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
VS.
VARUN ROSHAN KOHLI AND ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE T.S. SIVAGNANAM ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 19TH APRIL, 2023.
Appearance :
Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, Adv.
Ms. Moriam Sanfui, Adv.
Mr. Piyas Choudhury, Adv.
...for appellant
Ms. Sarda Sha, Adv.
...for Union of India.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Altamash Amin, Adv.
Ms. Rajashree Bhowmick, Adv.
...for opposite party/respondent No.1
The Court:- Heard learned Counsel on either side.
The first question which needs to be gone into is whether the writ petition was maintainable for the relief sought for, more particularly, when both the appellant banks as well as the respondent borrower have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and applications are pending.
The question would be as to whether, the respondent/borrower was entitled for a moratorium consequent upon a restructuring, the learned Single Bench has granted relief based on the said premise and has directed the matter to be sent back to the relevant Debt Recovery Tribunal so that the amounts are remitted to the loan account and the net result may be that the borrower is not treated as an NPA/defunct. 2
The appellant bank on the other hand, would contend that the respondent borrower with eyes wide open has signed all documents to enable him to secure a fresh Letter Of Credit and the question of granting a moratorium does not arise. As pointed out earlier, the first issue, which we like to consider, is with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. However, considering the amounts, which are outstanding as against the three loans availed by the respondent borrower which appeared to be not very huge exposure, we are of the opinion that if the party with an open mind have a discussion the dispute can be resolved. However, for the purpose of facilitating such a dialogue, we are of the view, that no precipitative measure should be taken by the respondent borrower. Therefore, that portion of the impugned order by which the learned Single Judge was directed to return all the funds to the account of the borrower and consequential direction shall remain stayed as well as the execution proceedings which have been initiated by the respondent borrower pursuant to the order and direction issued in the writ petition, this interim order shall be in force till 4th May, 2023.
However, we hope and trust that the observation made by us in this order will be taken in right spirit by both the parties and we expect good result would be reported on the next hearing date. To facilitate seamless discussion we would ask the senior officials of the appellant bank, who are well versed with the loan accounts of the respondent borrower, participate in the discussion where the learned Advocates for the parties as well as the borrower are present.
Let the matter be listed under the caption "For Direction" on 3rd May, 2023.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd/GH.