Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.3 The written submissions further point out that approval of an OTS is an involved exercise, which requires consideration of several factors including enforceability, the time that would be taken to recover the dues by any other mode of recovery, the net present value of the property put up as security and the net present value of the OTS proposal. There is no basis, whatsoever, to even suspect, much less hold, that BOM exercised its commercial wisdom irregularly, as to justify grant of the prayers in the writ petition. The writ petition essentially seeks institution of an inquiry into a commercial contract between independent private parties, without any justification whatsoever. Such an attempt has specifically been frowned upon, by a coordinate Bench of this Court, in its judgment in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v Union of India22.

14. Viewed from the above perspective, it becomes immediately apparent that the present proceedings are purely speculative in nature. The petitioner has, merely on the basis of a valuation report submitted in respect of the hotel, presumed that the property was undervalued and, what is worse, that BOM and PNB were complicit in that regard. As against this, the stance adopted before us by PNB and BOM 30 Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 W.P.(C) 4123/2025 indicate that several valuers' opinions were taken before the OTS proposed by AHN was approved, and the proposal was examined by committees at two layers, of which the first tier also included the participation of a retired High Court Judge.

17. The issue in fact stands covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Swamy. The nature of the litigation, in that case, is similar to that in the present. The petitioner, unarguably a citizen of eminence, and a recognized expert in economics, approached this Court by means of a Public Interest Litigation. It was alleged by the petitioner in that case that fraudulent acts had been committed by Max Life Insurance Company Ltd 33 and Max Financial Services Ltd.34, in allowing their shareholder Axis Bank Ltd35 and its group companies to make undue profits and illegal gains from purchase and sales of equity shares of Max Life in a non- transparent and illegal manner.

21. The situation before us in the present writ petition is visually identical to that which was before the Court in Subramanian Swamy. The petitioner is challenging a purely commercial contract executed between BOM and PNB with AHN. The writ petition does not dispute the fact that AHN did not possess the financial wherewithal to liquidate the loans availed from PNB and BOM.