Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. In Camdex International Ltd. v. Bank of Zambia reported in (1998) Q.B. 22 (CA) the following observation, which is relevant to the present case, needs to be quoted:

"The assignment of a debt will not be contrary to public policy solely on the grounds that the assignee has purchased the debt for a considerably discounted price or because that price is only payable after a period of credit. Nor will the assignment be contrary to public policy simply because the assignee may make a profit on the transaction at the end of the day. If there was no prospect of a profit, Hobhouse L.J. observed, commercial entities would never purchase debts."

46. As stated above, an outstanding in the account of a borrower(s) (customer) is a debt due and payable by the borrower(s) to the bank. Secondly, the bank is the owner of such debt. Such debt is an asset in the hands of the bank as a secured creditor or mortgagee or hypothecatee. The bank can always transfer its asset. Such transfer in no manner affects any right or interest of the borrower(s) (customer). Further, there is no prohibition in the BR Act, 1949 in the bank transferring its assets inter se. Even in the matter of assigning debts, it cannot be said that the banks are trading in debts, as held by the High Court(s). The assignor bank has never purchased the debt(s). It has advanced loans against security as part of its banking business. The account of a client in the books of the bank becomes non-performing asset when the client fails to repay. In assigning the debts with underlying security, the bank is only transferring its asset and is not acquiring any rights of its client(s). The bank transfers its asset for a particular agreed price and is no longer entitled to recover anything from the borrower(s). The moment ICICI Bank Ltd. transfers the debt with underlying security, the borrower(s) ceases to be the borrower(s) of the ICICI Bank Ltd. and becomes the borrower(s) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.(assignee).

49. In Camdex International Ltd. v. Bank of Zambia reported in (1998) Q.B. 22 (CA) the following observation which is relevant to the present case needs to be quoted:

"The assignment of a debt will not be contrary to public policy solely on the grounds that the assignee has purchased the debt for a considerably discounted price or because that price is only payable after a period of credit. Nor will the assignment be contrary to public policy simply because the assignee may make a profit on the transaction at the end of the day. If there was no prospect of a profit, Hobhouse L.J. observed, commercial entities would never purchase debts."

24. The petitioner - M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd is a banking company . The transfer of right to recover the debt from the secured assets by way of assignment, is a transfer of property. The assignee bank purchased the debts with rights of its sale. By such assignment, the assignee bank, as a banking company, has simply stepped into the shoes of the assignor bank to realise the security interest in the asset. The transaction does not suffer from any restriction in law, nor is the contract against public policy.