GANGAVARAM PORT LIMITED Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 03. 7. 2007 and issued rule nisi on 27. 11. 2007. Counter-affidavit had been filed. Reply affidavit also had been filed.

(2.) GANGAVARAM Port Limited, the writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the non-disbursement of the loan amount of Rs. 100. 00 crores, in particular, the first instalment amount of rs. 10,34,50,000/- and retention of upfront fee without extending any loan facility to the petitioner and retention of Rs. 35,00,000/- of the petitioner without assigning any reason and demanding for additional rate of interest at the rate of 1% against the rate of interest that was originally agreed for and not acting like other Banks and financial institutions that are parties to the common Loan Agreement, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of lending policy of banks, in particular, the Public Sector Banks and also violation of the guidelines of the RBI and/or Banking Regulation Act and pass such other suitable orders.

(3.) SRI Atul Sarma, representing Sri Deepak Chowdary, had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, counter-affidavit and also reply affidavit as well and would maintain that inconsistent stands had been taken by the respondent bank, initially taking a stand that the same is being non-remunerative and subsequent thereto taking a stand that the same is non-refundable. Learned counsel also would point out that if that is the stand to be taken by the respondent bank, why a portion of the amount had been paid to the petitioner and there is no answer in this regard. The learned counsel also had pointed out to relevant portions of the letters and correspondence and would maintain that the conduct of the respondent bank is definitely blameworthy and the respondent bank cannot be permitted to have unjust enrichment and in a way the promissory estoppel also would be operative and hence the learned counsel would conclude that though this may relate to contract, inasmuch as there are no disputed questions of fact involved in this matter at all, the relief prayed for to be granted both in law and also on the strength of the equity as well. The learned counsel relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.