Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Counsel further submitted that the appellant/petitioner company is not a wilful defaulter and the respondent Bank had sanctioned a total loan of Rs.100crores, out of which only Rs.15,50,39,091/-have been disbursed by the respondent and every paisa of the loan has been utilized by the appellant/petitioner entirely in the implementation of the project by purchasing the machinery establishing infrature etc. Out of the total term loan Rs.871crores sanctioned by the consortium banks, only about Rs.66 crores have been disbursed while the promoters of the project have invested over Rs.79 crores from their own personal sources. The total loan disbursement by the respondent is Rs.15.50 crores and the said amount has been utilized by the appellant/petitioner for construction, making advance payment to suppliers of plant and machinery and other works necessary for the project. Counsel submitted that the appellant/petitioner alone was not responsible for the delay of the project. The State Bank of India insisted on the appellant mortgaging land held by the appellant form the State Government through the Collector, Satna for mining lease of limestone, which is the basic raw material for the manufacture of cement. The land held on mining lease from the Collector, Satna is not of the ownership of the appellant/petitioner and, therefore, cannot be mortgaged and insistence on the part of the State Bank of India created deadlock in the project of the appellant/petitioner. Counsel submitted that vide a letter dated 29.11.2013 the respondent Bank called upon the appellant/petitioner to regularize the account and the letter was a notice of recall of the loan. Counsel further vehemently urged the fact that the judicial opinion regarding publication, which is allegedly unlawful, is 'varied' on the issue. Counsel also urged that although in W.P. No.9222/2012 M/s Jain Teerthankar Education Society and three others vs. State Bank of India, Indore the Writ Court of this High Court has observed that while publishing photograph of the borrower and the surety, there is no violation of any right or legal provision by the respondent Bank. Counsel submitted that another decision of our own Court in the matter of Ku. Archana Chauhan vs. State Bank of India reported in 2006 LAWS (MPH)-3-84 and the High Court of Kerala and Calcutta had taken up a different view. In the case of K.J. Doraisamy vs. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Branch and another (W.P. No.17761/2006 and M.P. Nos. 1 & 2/2006) the right of privacy of the borrowers had been protected by the Court. In the matter of Allahabad Bank vs. M/s Revati Cements Pvt. Ltd. the petitioner Bank claimed for transferring the petition from the High Court of M.P. Indore Bench to the Apex Court, which has been declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the matter of D.J. Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. State Bank of Bombay and others, the Apex Court had also dismissed the writ petition. The Bombay High Court in the said case has observed that the action of the Bank in publishing the photographs cannot be held to be ultravires and the order of the High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, granted a short time to the petitioner to file statement made by the Bank to publish photographs was extended for sometime. Counsel further submitted that the condition was unduly harsh and prayed for considering the matter and direction to the respondent Bank publishing of any photographs with names of the appellant/petitoner also likely to affect in the name of the Company borrowers, who were on the verge of financial crisis. Hence, Counsel prayed that the order of the Writ Court be set aside and interim relief be granted and the appeal be admitted for final hearing.