TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Viability concerns impact payment obligation, emphasizes compliance with loan terms</h1> <h3>BIhar State Financial Corporation & Ors. Versus Chemicot India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to compel the Corporation to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent due to viability concerns ... - Issues:1. Whether the Corporation was justified in refusing to disburse the term loan to the respondent due to the absence of a D.G.T.D. Registration CertificateRs.2. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Corporation to disburse the term loan to the respondentRs.3. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies against the financial corporation in this caseRs.4. Whether the Court can interfere with the decision of a statutory organization like the Corporation in a commercial matterRs.5. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the Corporation to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondentRs.Analysis:1. The Corporation refused to advance the term loan to the respondent due to the absence of a D.G.T.D. Registration Certificate, which the respondent argued was not applicable to a Small Scale Industry. The High Court found that the Corporation had waived its right to insist on the certificate since the agreement was registered. The respondent contended that the Corporation should honor the agreement despite the missing certificate.2. The High Court directed the Corporation to disburse the term loan to the respondent, emphasizing that the Corporation, being a statutory organization, could not take a stand different from its order. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider if the respondent had complied with the loan agreement terms regarding repayment installments.3. The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of promissory estoppel, stating that it could apply against the financial corporation if a case was made for it. The Court highlighted that the High Court's decision was based on the Corporation's statutory nature rather than commercial considerations, and the issue of promissory estoppel was not raised before the High Court.4. The Court deliberated on its jurisdiction to interfere with a decision by a statutory organization like the Corporation in a commercial matter. It noted that while the High Court's decision was based on the Corporation's statutory status, the commercial nature of the transactions should also be considered. The Court observed that the contentions raised before it were not presented before the High Court.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found it futile to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent. The Court noted the long delay in payment, the closed state of the unit, and the viability concerns regarding unit revival. It emphasized that disputed factual questions could not be resolved in the current proceedings and set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal with observations and no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
