SPPL HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioners. The appellant No.1/writ petitioner No.1 is a company and the appellant No.2/writ petitioner No.2 is its Vice-President - Legal. The appellants/writ petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated May 1, 2018 by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition being WP No.1040 of 2016 (M/s. SPPL Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors.). The respondent No.1 is a nationalised bank, the respondent No.2 and 3 are respectively the Assistant General Manager and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No.1 (Bank).

(2.) The case of the appellants/writ petitioners is briefly as follows:-

(3.) The appellants/writ petitioners refer to the account's statement issued by the Bank and submit that on 22nd September, 2015, the Bank had realised a sum of Rs.3,28,20,240/- under the head "DEBIT - PENAL CHG PRE CLS OF TL". It is the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that the Bank illegally, unlawful and in an unauthorised manner has realised the said sum of Rs.3,28,20,240/- when the appellants/writ petitioners were not liable to pay any pre-payment charges having paid the entire term loan with up to date interest on a reset date in terms of the agreement. The appellants/writ petitioners also submit that "pre-payment charges" and pre-payment penalty provided in clause 17 of the Post disbursement conditions in the first sanction letter has to be construed as the same in the context of the agreement. "Nil pre-payment penalty" should mean no pre-payment charges are leviable on the foreclosure of the term loan on the reset date.