SALUBRITY BIOTECH LTD Vs. BANK OF BARODA, VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned is communication dtd. 7/2/2022, by which opposite party-bank informed debit of prepayment charges for closure of credit facilities. He submits, the sanction letter did not contain any such term. It is an unfair practice as per guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

(2.) He refers to circular dtd. 6/3/2007 issued by the Reserve Bank of India laying out 'Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders'. He submits, clear guideline was for including comprehensive information on, inter alia, pre-payment option. The apex bank followed up by circulars dtd. 25/11/2008 and12/11/2010. He refers to sanction letter dtd. 5/11/2019 and submits, there is only reference to processing charges at Rs.350.00 per lac or part thereof and in addition, goods and services tax (GST).

(3.) Mr. Niamati, learned advocate appears on behalf of the bank. He submits, the sanction letter does contain reference to circular of his client under processing charges. In that circular has been provided prepayment charges. Therefore, the petitioner borrower cannot say that the information was not available. He submits further, in terms of the last referred circular dtd. 12/11/2010, the referred circular was uploaded to and available in his client's website.