1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court affirms bank's right to sell NPAs under RBI guidelines, limits judicial intervention</h1> The court upheld respondent No. 1's entitlement to sell its non-performing assets (NPAs) under RBI guidelines, rejecting the appellant's claims for prior ... Power of Reserve Bank to give directions Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of respondent No. 1 to sell its non-performing assets (NPAs) under RBI guidelines.2. Requirement of notice to the appellant before disposing of its financial assets.3. Consideration of the appellant's offer for one-time settlement (OTS) vis-`a-vis the highest bidder's offer.4. Binding nature of RBI guidelines.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in contractual matters.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of respondent No. 1 to sell its non-performing assets (NPAs) under RBI guidelines:The court upheld that respondent No. 1 is entitled to sell its NPAs to other banking institutions or financial institutions under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The guidelines, issued vide Circular No. RBI/2005-06/54 DBOD. No.BP.BC 16/21.04.048/2005-2006, dated 13-7-2005, were found to be binding on respondent No. 1. The court noted that these guidelines are designed to increase the options available to banks for resolving their NPAs and to develop a healthy secondary market for NPAs.2. Requirement of notice to the appellant before disposing of its financial assets:The court rejected the appellant's claim that it was entitled to prior notice before the sale of its NPAs. It was clarified that the NPAs are debts owed by the appellant to respondent No. 1, and therefore, respondent No. 1 is entitled to deal with these debts as its assets. The RBI guidelines do not mandate prior notice to the debtor before the sale of NPAs, and respondent No. 1 complied with these guidelines in its actions.3. Consideration of the appellant's offer for one-time settlement (OTS) vis-`a-vis the highest bidder's offer:The appellant argued that its offer of Rs. 520 lakhs should have been accepted as it was higher than the highest bid of Rs. 501 lakhs. The court held that no party can be directed to enter into an OTS, as it requires mutual agreement. The appellant had previously failed to honor an OTS offer, and the court found no basis to compel respondent No. 1 to accept a subsequent offer. The court emphasized that the decision to accept or reject an OTS is a commercial decision that cannot be interfered with by the court.4. Binding nature of RBI guidelines:The court affirmed the binding nature of the RBI guidelines, referencing the Supreme Court judgments in B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. Custodian and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra. These judgments established that RBI guidelines have statutory force and are binding on banking institutions. The guidelines are intended to ensure proper management and resolution of NPAs, and respondent No. 1 was obligated to comply with them.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in contractual matters:The court reiterated that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are broad but should not be used to interfere in commercial decisions unless there is a violation of law or unfairness. The court cited several judgments, including Orissa State Financial Corpn. v. Narsingh Ch. Nayak and Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagadamba Oil Mills, to support the principle that writs of mandamus are not appropriate for enforcing contractual matters. The court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate any public duty being discharged by respondent No. 1 that warranted judicial intervention.Conclusion:The court found no merit in the appellant's claims and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that respondent No. 1 acted within its rights under the RBI guidelines and that the appellant's offer for OTS could not be enforced through a writ petition. The court emphasized the importance of respecting commercial decisions made by financial institutions in compliance with regulatory guidelines.