ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aditya Gupta for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. K.M.Parikh for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) Your Lordships Be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, mandamus to quash and set aside the communication dated 27.12,2019 recalling the credit factlities at Annexure L to this Petition and communication dated 21.10.2019 annexed at Annexure A to this petition by way of which the Respondent bank has withdrawn the concessional rate of interest and processing charges retrospectively with effect from 01.10.2018 as being in violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal in the interest of justice. (b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, mandamus to direct the Respondent bank to reverse the illegal entries debited on account of withdrawal of the concessional rate of interest and processing charges retrospectively with effect from 01.10.2018 including the debit of Rs. 25,77,808/-and Rs.1,68,340 in the account of the Petitioner on 09.12.2019 In the interest of justice. (c) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the communication dated 27.12,2019 recalling the credit facilities at Annexure L to this Petition and communication dated 21.10.2019 at Annexure - A to this petition and to further not give effect to the debit entry of Rs. 25,77,808 and Rs.1,68,340 made on 09.12.2019 in the account of the Petitioner on account of withdrawal of the concessional rate of interest and processing charges retrospectively with effect from 01.10.2018 pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (d) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders, which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner can be summarized as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is running a manufacturing unit of weaving and grage fabrics and is currently employing upto 155 people. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner can be summarized as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is running a manufacturing unit of weaving and grage fabrics and is currently employing upto 155 people. The petitioner company was incorporated on 13.05.1988 almost 33 years back and has been banking with the respondent-bank since 2008 more than 12 years and had several term loans which were dully paid in time and has been regularly servicing their liabilities well in time without a single event of delay or default. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-company was sanctioned credit facilities by the respondent vide sanction letter dated 15.06.2008. The credit facilities sanctioned vide letter dated 15.06.2008 were renewed from time to time by the respondent-bank. The credit facilities have been renewed vide sanction letters dated 25.05.2009, 21.07.2010, 16.02.2011, 03.10.2012, 09.04.2014, 15.03.2016 and 30.01.2019. It is stated that the petitioner was regularly servicing the facilities sanctioned by the respondent from time to time without any complaint from the Respondent. 3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-bank unilaterally vide communication dated 21.10.2019 informing that the credit rating of the petitioner was downgraded from BOB-5 to BOB-7 and hence, concessional rate of interest and processing charged was withdrawn w.e.f. 01.10.2018. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank in unilaterally withdrawing the concessional rate of interest with retrospective effect from 01.10.2018 the petitioner approached this Court with aforesaid prayers. 4. This Court passed the following order 04.02.2020: “NOTICE returnable on 11th FEBRUARY, 2020. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been communicated about degrading the petitioner on the basis of ABS-2018 from BOB-5 to BOB-7 and as per the condition of contract more particularly no.5 of the detailed terms and conditions for availing the benefits of concessional rates the internal rating is not to fall below BOB-6. It is submitted that the balance-sheet of the company is healthy however, only on account of two Directors of the company were also Director in another company with which the petitioner has no connection and that such other company has been declared defaulter consequentially having effect on the petitioner company. It is submitted that the balance-sheet of the company is healthy however, only on account of two Directors of the company were also Director in another company with which the petitioner has no connection and that such other company has been declared defaulter consequentially having effect on the petitioner company. Learned advocate draws attention of this Court to the elaborate reply given to the Bank with regard to Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 25 12:06:50 IST 2021 C/SCA/3134/2020 ORDER the fact that socalled defaulter Directors have resigned from the petitioner company and therefore the only reason for degrading the petitioner from BOB-5 to BOB-7 no more exists. It is submitted that despite this corrective measure taken by the petitioner the Bank is not accepting status of resignation of defaulting Director s and still proceeding with its decision to continue the petitioner in the internal grading of the BOB-7. This in submission of learned advocate for the petitioner would result into converting a perfectly healthy company towards the NPA Account. Direct service is permitted.” 5. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Bank, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has changed the concessional rate of interest which was agreed upon as per the sanction letter dated 30.01.2019 by shifting the internal rating from BOB-5 to BOB-7 on the ground that for availing the concessional rate of interest, internal rating should not be more than BOB6. 6. It was submitted that when the petitioner filed this petition in the year 2020, the account of the petitioner No.1 was not declared as Non-Performing Assets [‘NPA’ for short]. Therefore, the petition is required to be entertained as it results in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in view of the unilateral action taken by the respondent-Bank of increasing the rate of interest with retrospective effect without any intimation or an giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7.Learned advocate Mr. Gupta referred to the letter dated 16.12.2019 of the respondent-Bank at Annexure-H, page-38 to submit that there is no reason to reduce the internal rate by degrading from BOB-5 to BOB-7 due to the classification of the so-called group company account of M/s. Raghav Madhav Filaments Private Ltd as NPA Account wherein one Mr. 7.Learned advocate Mr. Gupta referred to the letter dated 16.12.2019 of the respondent-Bank at Annexure-H, page-38 to submit that there is no reason to reduce the internal rate by degrading from BOB-5 to BOB-7 due to the classification of the so-called group company account of M/s. Raghav Madhav Filaments Private Ltd as NPA Account wherein one Mr. Ruchir Mittal-present Director of the petitioner company was also Director at some point of time and thereafter, Mr. Ruchir Mittal has resigned from M/s. Raghav Madhav Filaments Private Limited and the petitioner company has no relation with the said company whose account is declared as Non-Performing Asset [‘NPA’] Account by the respondent bank. It was therefore submitted that the respondent-Bank could not have degraded the internal rating of the petitioner from BOB-5 to BOB-7 so as to withdraw the concessional rate of interest agreed upon in the sanction letter. 8. It was further submitted that the respondent-Bank was also not justified in withdrawing the interest from retrospective effect from 01.10.2018. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta also referred to the letters written by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank intimating that the Credit Rating Agency-CARE has not downgraded the credit rating of the petitioner company and as such, the charging of interest of Rs. 25,77,808/- in the account of the petitioner-company from 01.10.2018 was totally illegal resulting into misuse of power by the bank officer. It was also submitted that the bank has also debited illegally the various other charges in the account resulting into the account of the petitioner as nonperforming asset account though profit before tax as per the profit and loss account as on 31.03.2018 of the petitioner-company was of Rs. 6,39,116/-. 10. It was further submitted that in view of the above facts, action of the respondent bank to declare the account of the NPA Account is contrary to the relevant RBI Rules and Regulations and therefore, the entire exercise carried out by the respondent-bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [‘Sarfaesai Act’ for short]is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta in support of his submissions relied upon the following decisions: 1. Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Devi Ispat Ltd and ors reported in (2010) 11 SCC 186 ; 2. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta in support of his submissions relied upon the following decisions: 1. Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Devi Ispat Ltd and ors reported in (2010) 11 SCC 186 ; 2. ABL International Ltd and Anr vs. Eport Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and ors reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 ; 3. Sushila Chemicals Pvt Ltd and anr vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and ors reported in (2010) 10 SCC 388 ; 4. Harbanslal Sahnia and anr vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 . 12. This matter was heard on 13.10.2021 at length and learned advocate Mr. Gupta made various submissions on merits as recorded herein-above and the matter was adjourned today so as to enable Mr. Gupta to file further affidavit of the petitioner with a clear understanding that whether the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the outstanding dues of the respondent-bank except the alleged disputed amount of interest which is debited by the respondent- bank by charging higher rate of interest withdrawing concessional rate of interest by downgrading the internal rating of the petitioner from BOB5 to BOB7. 13. In response to the aforesaid, learned advocate Mr. Gupta has tendered further affidavit of the petitioner wherein it is averred that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay only Rs. 1,03,26,037/- on or before 31.12.2021 so as to regularize the financial assistance advanced by the respondent-bank. 14. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent-bank has already declared the account of the petitioner as NPA account and further actions are taken by the respondent-bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [‘SARFAESAI Act’ for short]. The petitioner has also challenged such action before the DRT under section 17 of the SARFAESAI Act. 15. In that view of the matter, to adjudicate on any issue pertaining to the declaration of the account of the petitioner as NPA would jeopardize the pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, I refrain from adjudicating the issue of declaration of NPA Account by the respondent-bank in this proceeding. 16. 15. In that view of the matter, to adjudicate on any issue pertaining to the declaration of the account of the petitioner as NPA would jeopardize the pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, I refrain from adjudicating the issue of declaration of NPA Account by the respondent-bank in this proceeding. 16. So far as the issue with regard to the charging of the higher rate of interest resulting into the account of the petitioner as NPA Account is also interwoven with the issue pending before the Debt Recover Tribunal. Therefore, if any adjudication is made on that issue also would result in affecting the merits of the pending proceeding before the Tribunal. The apprehension shown on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal is not empowered or do not have any jurisdiction to decide with regard to charging of higher rate of interest by the respondent bank by downgrading the internal ratings from BOB5 to BOB7 is also misplaced as the Tribunal is seized with the matter on merits with regard to issuance of the notice under section 13 of the SARFAESAI Act and the basis of such notice is also required to be considered by the Tribunal while adjudicating the objections raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFESAI Act. 17. In that view of the matter and for the foregoing reasons, instead of going into the merits of the matter at this juncture, I relegate the petitioner to the Tribunal for raising all the contentions which are raised before this Court in this petition and the Tribunal is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. In view of the above, decisions cited by the petitioner are not dealt with so as to enable the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the Tribunal. 18. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Notice is discharged. 19. Civil Application stands disposed of in view of the disposal of the Special Civil Application.