TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 132 months commencing from May 2018. It was stated that the loan was sanctioned on 22.05.2017. The first disbursement was on 24.05.2017 and the last disbursement was on 25.01.2018 and the moratorium period was for 12 months and therefore, the first Equated Monthly Installment should commence only from May 2018. It was however stated that the loan was declared as Non Performing Asset on 03.05.2018 declaring that the total outstanding was Rs. 27,51,36,847.10. In this connection, the petitioner had given an objection letter on 08.05.2018. It was stated that declaring the account as Non Performing Asset is illegal and it was further stated that the accounts have been manipulated. It was stated that the first respondent had an obligation to examine into the complaint given. Further complaints were given on 27.05.2019 and on 28.05.2019. Since the first respondent had not taken any action, the Writ Petition had been filed. W.P.No. 17134 of 2019: 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had obtained a short term loan of Rs. 3.20 crores for business activities by mortgaging the apartment bearing No.10/262, measuring 2560 sq.ft.,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was stated that the complaint mechanism is not a legal recourse mechanism and is purely a grievance redressal methodology. It had been stated that the Reserve Bank of India had taken up the issue with the second respondent and they had returned the title deeds. With respect to the declaration of the accounts as NPA, it had been stated that the same is pending, SARFAESI action before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and consequently, the first respondent cannot interfere with such issue. It had been further stated that this Court had narrowed down the issue to "whether the moratorium period has to be computed from the date of sanction of loan or from the date of disbursement of the last installment of loan. 6. It had been stated that with respect to the moratorium period of loan, there was no specific guidelines issued by the first respondent. However, the Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 permitted the banks where moratorium is available for payment of interest and stated that it was for the individual banks to lay out policies to decide the moratorium period. It was therefore stated that since the complaints had been addressed by the e-mail dated 17.07.2019, the Writ Petition had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "CEPC, Chennai Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1.07 P.M. Dear Sir, Please refer to your complaint dated May 17, 2019 on the captioned subject. We advise that, we have taken up the matter with the bank and bank has informed that they have adhered to our guidelines in classifying the group accounts of M/s. CeeDee Yes IT Park Private Limited as NPA by them in the financial year 2017-18 due to default in repayments in terms of RBI guidelines and the same was also mentioned by their Statutory Auditors in their LFAR. 2. Further, bank stated that they have released the subject documents of the property to you vide their letter dated July 08, 2019. 3. Hence, we regret to express that Reserve Bank of India do not intervene in the recovery process of the bank, and in their internal policy/commercial decision of the bank. In view of the above, we treat the complaint as dealt with and closed at out end. R.Ravishankar Assistant Manager CEPC, RBI Chennai."" 11. It is claimed by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners that the order does not answer the issue, namely whether the moratorium period was to be calculated from the date of sanction of loan or from the date of disb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 23, 2014, wherein they have agreed in terms of Clause 10.1.t(vi) under default and termination clause, agreeing for liability on cross defaults. Therefore, this respondent, RBI is not in a position to intervene in such issues mutually agreed to by both parties." 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent had relied on the very same Judgements which they had relied on in W.P.No. 25226 of 2019. 13. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel relied on (2002) 1 SCC 367 {Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated as follows:- "(5) The power conferred by Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1935 is coupled with duty to Act. Reserve Bank of India is prime banking institution of the country entrusted with a supervisory role over banking and conferred with the authority of issuing binding directions, having statutory force, in the interest of public in general and preventing banking affairs from deterioration and prejudice as also to secure the proper management of any banking company generally. Reserve Bank of India is one of the watchdogs of finance and economy of the nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business of or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to these provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself. Provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so for acquiring authority. 33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to c....