Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1156 (GAU)

Asomi Finance Pvt Ltd. v. State Bank Of India

2019-10-24

SUMAN SHYAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner No. 1 herein is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of Micro-Financing. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 company. In the year 2011, the petitioner No. 1 had applied for a term loan of Rs. 24 Crores from the State Bank of India (SBI) for operating its micro-financing business as a non-banking finance company. Accordingly, the proposal for sanctioning the term loan was approved by the respondent No. 9, where-after, a sum of Rs. 8 Crores was also released in favour of the petitioner No. 1. However, having released the initial amount of Rs. 8 Crores, the balance amount of Rs. 16 Crores was withheld by the Bank on the ground that the Managing Director of the petitioner company, i.e. the petitioner No. 2 herein and another member of the Board of Directors viz. Naren Chandra Medhi, who were the office bearers of M/s Asomi Society, a registered society, also engaged in the business of micro-financing, had defaulted in repayment of loan availed by the society from the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI). It appears that the petitioner No. 2 and Naren Chandra Medhi were the personal guarantors in respect of the loan obtained by M/s Asomi (registered society) from SIDBI. 3. Mr. Roy submits that the petitioner No. 1, being a private limited company is an independent entity and therefore, it has no nexus with M/s Asomi which is a registered society. Although the two members of the Board of Directors of the petitioner company were the erstwhile office bearers of M/s Asomi and had given a personal guarantee for securing the loan obtained from the SIDBI, they have already discharged their liabilities. Mr. Roy further submits that there is already a direction from this Court to the effect that their names be deleted from the list of defaulters. Under the circumstances the respondent Bank is not justified in withholding the loan amount sanctioned to the petitioner No. 1 company. Mr. Roy has, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus, interalia, directing the respondents to release the balance amount of the un-disbursed loan to the tune of Rs. Under the circumstances the respondent Bank is not justified in withholding the loan amount sanctioned to the petitioner No. 1 company. Mr. Roy has, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus, interalia, directing the respondents to release the balance amount of the un-disbursed loan to the tune of Rs. 16 Crores along with other consequential benefits and also revive the current account of the petitioner No. 1, which had been frozen by the Bank for no valid reason. 4. Responding to the above, Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time when the impugned action was initiated by his clients, the office bearers of the petitioner No. 1 company were identified as defaulters and therefore, with a view to secure its financial interest, the Bank had initiated the aforesaid measures. Since the petitioner No. 2 and Naren Chandra Medhi have been discharged of their liabilities at a much later date, the action of the Bank initiated on the basis of the information available at the relevant point of time cannot be faulted with. However, Mr. Buragohain has fairly submitted that due to the subsequent development arising out of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 805/2015, his clients would be open to revisit the chain of events and take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 5. It is to be noted herein that being aggrieved by the action on the part of the SIDBI, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 along with one Naren Chandra Medhi had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 805/2015 which was disposed of by this Court by the judgment and order dated 14-06-2018 by observing that the writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 therein (i.e. petitioner No. 2 and Naren Chandra Medhi respectively) stood discharged from their liabilities and therefore, steps were required to be taken by SIDBI for deleting their names from the defaulter’s details. The operative part of the order dated 14-06-2018 is extracted herein-below for ready reference: “Having regard to the undisputed facts above and more particularly that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who stood as personal guarantors to the loan availed from SIDBI have discharged from liability to the extent of Rs. The operative part of the order dated 14-06-2018 is extracted herein-below for ready reference: “Having regard to the undisputed facts above and more particularly that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who stood as personal guarantors to the loan availed from SIDBI have discharged from liability to the extent of Rs. 23 Lakhs, it is now for SIDBI to take remedial measures with the Reserve Bank of India for deletion of the names of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 from the aforesaid PCM Defaulters Details (Annexure-15). While doing so, SIDBI shall also take into account that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had tendered resignation from the organisation called M/s ASOMI way back in May 2011, whereas approach to the DRT was made only in the year 2013. Let the exercise for initiating steps for deletion of the names of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 be taken by SIDBI as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 2 (two) weeks from the date when a copy of this order is furnished to it. An early action on the part of SIDBI becomes essential because the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are presently holding the post of Directors of petitioner no. 1 and figuring of their names in the Defaulter List would certainly tell upon the business of the petitioner no. 1. Petitioners are permitted to furnish a copy of this order to SIDBI for its doing the needful in terms of the above. Writ petition stands accordingly disposed of.” 6. From the aforesaid order passed by this Court, it is clear beyond a shadow of doubt that whatever liability, the petitioner No. 2 and Naren Chandra Medhi had towards SIDBI stood finally discharged and the aforesaid two guarantors stood relieved of all their liabilities. If that be so, the stand taken by the respondents showing their reluctance to release the balance portion of the loan amount sanctioned to the writ petition No. 1 and also to restore the current account, which was frozen earlier, prima facie appears to be arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. Be that as it may, since this writ petition has been pending before this Court since the year 2012 and considering the fact that there are number of significant developments that have taken place in the meantime, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the respondent Nos. 7. Be that as it may, since this writ petition has been pending before this Court since the year 2012 and considering the fact that there are number of significant developments that have taken place in the meantime, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 to look into the grievance of the writ petitioners afresh in the light of the order passed by this Court, and thereafter, take an appropriate decision for redressal of their grievances. Facilitating the above, the petitioners to produce a certified copy of this order before the competent authority within 02 weeks from today. Since the issue involved in this petition is likely to have a serious commercial implication for the petitioners, the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.