Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.03 seconds)
Documents citing Dlf Limited vs Punjab National Bank on 27 May, 2011

Through Its Authorized Signatory Col. ... vs Standard Chartered Bank on 31 July, 2020

17. The decision in DLF Limited (supra) rested on the principle that a person, who is visited with any charges for a facility, should be aware of the same at the time of availing the facility and not at the time of discharging the same. This is a principle of fair play and fair practice, which the banks are obliged to follow. It would make little difference whether the facilities extended by the banks are fund based or non-fund based."
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Spirits Limited vs Idbi Bank Limited on 27 June, 2019

In the decision of DLF Ltd. supra, the Delhi High Court held that since the question in the aforesaid decision involved non compliance with RBI guidelines, therefore, an element of public law was present in the fact situation of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be maintainable. In the instant case, the 31 question of adherence to guidelines framed by the RBI is not involved. Similarly, in case of ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD., the Supreme Court while dealing with an insurance contract held that when an instrumentality of State acts contrary to public interest, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligation, it really acts contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the fact situation of the case, in paragraph 53 of the decision, the court found that relief as sought for by the petitioners should be granted. The aforesaid decision is also of no assistance to the petitioners.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A Aradhe - Full Document

De Lage Landen Financial Services India ... vs Evan Multispeciality Hospital & ... on 12 March, 2019

10. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, the entitlement in law of the plaintiff to default interest at the rate of 30% per annum, even if so provided in the Loan Agreement and of pre-payment / foreclosure charges of Rs.11,22,434/-, again, even if provided in the agreement. Attention is invited to dicta of this Court in DLF Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2465 holding the said foreclosure charges to be not recoverable.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Kaluram Food Products Ltd., Akola, Thr. ... vs Punjab National Bank Thr. Its Branch ... on 17 November, 2021

In the case of Noble Resources Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, it is trite that if an action on ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2021 07:17:29 ::: Judgment 20 wp2465.21+1.odt the part of the State is violative of the equality clause contained in Article 14, writ petition would be maintainable even in the contractual field. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that a distinction indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny is more intrusive, in the latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14. It is further observed that where a public law element is involved, judicial review would be permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

M/S Omprakash Shivprakash, Akola, Thr. ... vs Punjab National Bank Akola, Thr. Its ... on 17 November, 2021

In the case of Noble Resources Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, it is trite that if an action on ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2021 07:17:34 ::: Judgment 20 wp2465.21+1.odt the part of the State is violative of the equality clause contained in Article 14, writ petition would be maintainable even in the contractual field. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that a distinction indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny is more intrusive, in the latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14. It is further observed that where a public law element is involved, judicial review would be permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document

M/S Splash Bath Appliances Inc vs Sidbi Bank on 20 October, 2021

C/SCA/16433/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/10/2021 5.4) Reliance was placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of DLF Limited v. Punjab Natinal Bank [W.P(C) No. 8520/2010 dated 27th May, 2011) wherein Delhi High Court in similar facts held that the demand of the bank from the petitioner for prepayment charges was without any basis as the same was never disclosed to the petitioner in the said case by the Punjab National Bank in view of RBI circulars dated 25th November, 2008 and 12th November, 2010. It was further submitted that in view of violation of circulars of the RBI, Delhi High Court entertained the petition holding that it cannot be said that there is no public law element in the case and question involved entails compliance/non- compliance by the respondent bank of the RBI guidelines. It was therefore, submitted that the petition would be maintainable as in similar facts of the present case when respondent no.1 has not adhered to the RBI guidelines and have not complied with the same which is evident from the facts on record.
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - B D Karia - Full Document

M/S Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd ... vs The Union Of India on 4 June, 2024

The aforesaid argument of the learned senior counsel could have been accorded consideration in the light of the legal position enunciated in DLF (supra), but I find little foundation laid by the petitioner in the petition. It is not subject matter of debate in this petition as to whether the prepayment charges envisaged in the sanction orders are by way of pre- fixed compensation for breach or a penalty for breach. That apart, to take the benefit of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, the onus is of the petitioner to show that by shifting of the loans from the respondent- bank to the YES Bank and squaring the loans of respondent-bank prematurely will not cause any loss to the respondent-bank or will cause loss to the respondent-bank which is less than 4%, which the respondent-bank is proposing to charge as prepayment charges.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

M/S Balaji Food Products vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025

37. Accordingly, the petition is hereby fails and is dismissed. So far as the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of DLF Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank (supra), the Court therein was dealing with an issue, wherein as per the admitted agreement between the parties, there was no reference whatsoever to the pre-payment charges and there was only use of words "after a moratorium of 30 months from the date of disbursement" in relation to repayment of the loan and in that context the Court has held that the petitioner therein was only obliged to re-pay the loan within a period of 30 months and the respondent/Bank has agreed not to enforce the said obligation for the said period. The Court therein from the language of the loan agreement and other documents had held that it cannot be said that the respondent/Bank had at the time of granting the loan informed the petitioner that it could not pre-paid the loan before 30 months or that if it so prepaid the loan, it will be liable for charges. Thus, facts of this case are not applicable to the present case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

M/S Balaji Dal Mill Through Partner ... vs State Bank Of India on 21 January, 2025

37. Accordingly, the petition is hereby fails and is dismissed. So far as the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of DLF Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank (supra), the Court therein was dealing with an issue, wherein as per the admitted agreement between the parties, there was no reference whatsoever to the pre-payment charges and there was only use of words "after a moratorium of 30 months from the date of disbursement" in relation to repayment of the loan and in that context the Court has held that the petitioner therein was only obliged to re-pay the loan within a period of 30 months and the respondent/Bank has agreed not to enforce the said obligation for the said period. The Court therein from the language of the loan agreement and other documents had held that it cannot be said that the respondent/Bank had at the time of granting the loan informed the petitioner that it could not pre-paid the loan before 30 months or that if it so prepaid the loan, it will be liable for charges. Thus, facts of this case are not applicable to the present case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next