Commercial summary suit: regulatory breach and stamping defects did not nullify the claim; conditional leave to defend was granted.

In a commercial summary suit, alleged breach of RBI directions and SFIO findings did not by themselves render the loan transaction unenforceable; the borrower's written acknowledgments of liability supported the claim and the objection did not justify unconditional leave to defend. The alleged delay in invoking pledged shares was treated as a potentially triable defence because the correspondence suggested a possible loss from not selling at the relevant time, but only as a factor for conditional leave. Insufficient stamp duty on the loan, guarantee and pledge documents also did not require unconditional leave, as the instruments could be impounded and stamp adjudication undertaken while the suit proceeded. Conditional leave was granted on deposit of admitted principal amounts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether alleged breach of Reserve Bank of India directions and the SFIO findings rendered the loan transaction legally unenforceable; (ii) whether the alleged failure to invoke pledged shares at an earlier and more favourable time raised a triable issue; (iii) whether insufficiency of stamp duty on the loan, guarantee and pledge documents justified unconditional leave to defend in a commercial summary suit.

Issue (i): whether alleged breach of Reserve Bank of India directions and the SFIO findings rendered the loan transaction legally unenforceable.

Analysis: The alleged non-compliance with lending norms and the practice described as evergreening did not, by itself, make the underlying debt void. The loan facility was extended for purposes that included refinance of loans and loans and advances to group companies, and the defendants had acknowledged the liability in writing. The Court distinguished between regulatory infractions by the lender and the enforceability of the borrower's admitted obligation, holding that the former may invite action against the lender but does not automatically extinguish civil liability under the transaction.

Conclusion: The transaction was not held unenforceable on this ground, and no unconditional leave to defend was warranted on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged failure to invoke pledged shares at an earlier and more favourable time raised a triable issue.

Analysis: A pledgee is generally not bound to exercise the power of sale at a particular time merely because market prices are favourable. However, the correspondence showed that the defendants had sought sale of the pledged shares and had also referred to an approved takeover deal at a stated price. On those facts, the alleged failure to proceed with the sale at the relevant time, if established, could have caused loss to the defendants and was not merely theoretical.

Conclusion: The issue was held to raise a triable defence, but only as a factor relevant to conditional leave.

Issue (iii): whether insufficiency of stamp duty on the loan, guarantee and pledge documents justified unconditional leave to defend in a commercial summary suit.

Analysis: The Stamp Act provisions protect revenue and bar acting upon an insufficiently stamped instrument, but that objection does not necessarily defeat a summary suit where there are other supporting documents such as a demand promissory note, balance confirmations and acknowledgments of liability. The Court held that the instruments could be impounded and sent for adjudication without postponing the summary procedure. The presence of admitted liability also supported the grant of conditional leave rather than an unconditional defence.

Conclusion: The plea of insufficient stamping did not entitle the defendants to unconditional leave; the documents were to be impounded and the deficit stamp duty adjudicated.

Final Conclusion: The defendants were granted only conditional leave to defend on deposit of the admitted principal amounts, while the impugned instruments were ordered to be impounded and referred for stamp adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In a commercial summary suit, admitted liability and supporting acknowledgments may justify conditional leave to defend, and objections based on regulatory breach or insufficient stamping do not, without more, nullify the claim or require unconditional leave where the deficiency can be addressed by impounding the instruments.

---