M A Enterprises vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 12.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 11344/2024
M A ENTERPRISES ………Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Mr. Tarun
Mann, Ms. Kavya, Ms. Divya Kumar
Wadhawan, Advs.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. ………Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for
R1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-
“(i) Issue writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith issue a No-Dues
Certificate for the Petitioner’s Account No.
4904008700000633 with the Respondent No. 1 bank.
(ii) Issue writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith release the title
deeds in relation to Warehouse Plot No. N3B3, admeasuring
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 1 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
8400.00 square meters in the property known as Verna
Industrial Estate, Phase-III-B, surveyed under Survey No.
261, situated within the local limits of Village Panchayat of
Loutolim, Taluka Salcete, District South Goa, State of Goa,
which was offered as security with the Respondent No. 1
bank.
(iii) Issue writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith issue the necessary
communications to Respondent No. 2 informing about the
closure of the outstanding shown in the account of petitioner
updating the credit score of the Petitioner. ...”
2. The petitioner i.e., M.A. Enterprises, a partnership firm registered
under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2020
is in the business of edible and non-edible oil.
3. The respondent No.1 i.e., Punjab National Bank, is a nationalized
bank and the respondent No.2 i.e., Credit Information Bureau (India)
Limited, is just a pro-forma respondent.
FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITIONER
4. Respondent No. 1 vide Loan Sanction Letter dated 18.04.2016
sanctioned a loan to the petitioner for Rs. 39 crores (wherein Rs. 1
crore was fund based and Rs. 38 crores was Non-Fund based) against
petitioner’s property being Plot No. N3B-3, admeasuring 8400.00
square meters in the property known as Verna Industrial Estate, Phase-
III-B, surveyed under Survey No. 261, situated within the local limits
of Village Panchayat of Loutolim, Taluka Salcete, District South Goa,
State of Goa (“ security property ”) as security. The loan was renewed
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 2 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
vide Loan Renewal/Sanction letter dated 28.09.2017, subject to
conditions.
5. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, petitioner’s business faced severe issues.
Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 07.04.2020 informed the petitioner
that Zonal Office Credit Approval Committee (“ ZOCAC ”) has agreed
to short renewal of current limits, Rate of Interest (“ ROI ”) and Service
charges on applicable rates and continued waiver of forward booking
of USD against import, contingent on 10% extra cash margin in lieu of
booking of forward cover regarding the petitioner’s account
6. By December 2020, the petitioner had paid Rs. 7.20 crores. Yet, on
31.03.2021, respondent No.1 declared petitioner’s account(s) as Non-
Performing Assets (“ NPA ”).
7. In the interim, the Reserve Bank of India (“ RBI ”) released a scheme
allowing One-Time Restructuring (“ OTR ”), under which the
petitioner filed an application dated 23.12.2020. The respondent No.1
vide letter dated 16.08.2021 granted the petitioner OTR, with
restoration of the Cash Credit (“ CC ”) limit to Rs. 24.41 crores,
conversion to a letter of credit (“ LC ”) of Rs. 24.41 crores, Funding Of
Interest Term Loan (“ FITL ”) of Rs. 0.58 crore and a Working Capital
Term Loan (“ WCTL ”) of Rs. 7.93 crores and inclusion of service
charges and an increase in book debts’ cover period from 90 days to
180 days.
8. On 02.07.2022, out of the petitioner’s three accounts two were again
declared NPA. Thereafter, the demand/recall notice dated 15.07.2022
was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to initiate
recovery proceedings. However, as per the respondent No.1, on failure
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 3 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
of the petitioner to fulfil its dues, it issued a Possession Notice dated
27.05.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 seeking
recovery of Rs. 31,66,70,478.15/-, plus interest and other charges.
9. Consequently, the petitioner decided to sell the security property with
the respondent No.1 and issued a letter dated 12.07.2023 to respondent
No.1 seeking leave to sell the security property and to apply the
interest rate at the contracted rate. In its attempt, the petitioner also
approached AVG Logistics Limited (“ AVG ”) (a public listed
company, which is a related company of petitioner) to purchase the
security property, pursuant to which, a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 25.07.2023 was executed between the petitioner
and AVG for sale and purchase of security property.
10. Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 04.09.2023 granted permission to
sell the security property and deposit the sale proceeds in petitioner’
account and also provided a No Objection Certificate (“ NOC ”),
subject to conditions such as mortgage will continue until dues are
repaid, and bank will retain as security the property’s title deeds until
all dues are repaid.
11. Later, petitioner vide letter dated 02.03.2024 confirmed repayment of
the outstanding dues with interest in Account Nos.
4904008700000633 and 8143IC00000299 and also requested reversal
of penal interest on Rs. 1.25 crores, pending in Account No.
4904008700000633 and assured that remaining dues will be paid after
reversal of penal interest of 2%. However, vide letter dated 15.03.2024
respondent No.1 rejected petitioner’s request.
12. Subsequently, petitioner issued letter dated 27.03.2024 to respondent
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 4 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
No.1 pertaining to dues showing in CC Account No.
4904008700000633 and explained the respondent No.1 that all dues
are cleared and only Rs. 1.11 crores is pending, including Rs. 71 lakhs
as penal interest and that the interest has been paid under protest, of
which refund will be sough later and requested a NOC.
13. As on 31.03.2024 , the Statement of Account of petitioner’s account
No. 4904008700000633 showed zero outstanding amount, post
payment of Rs. 36,93,06,555/-. Later, vide email dated 01.04.2024 the
Chief Manager, Zonal SASTRA, Delhi, requested LCB DCM to close
the petitioner’s account and release the securities.
14. Petitioner addressed an email dated 03.04.2024 to respondent No.1
seeking closure of petitioner’s account No. 4904008700000633, as all
dues were settled as of 30.03.2024 and sought the original documents
of security property and requested issuance of a NOC. Petitioner again
addressed a letter dated 09.04.2024 to respondent No.1 pertaining to
its Account No. 4904008700000633 requesting for NOC, security
property documents and refund of penal interest and in this regard
petitioner addressed another letter dated 09.04.2024 to one Mr. Bibhu
Prasad Mahapatra (Executive Director, Sastra Division) and another
letter dated 16.042024 requesting waiver of Right of Recompense and
issuance of NOC and release of security property documents.
15. On the other hand, the petitioner transferred the security property to
AVG vide a Transfer Deed dated 22.05.2024. The petitioner wrote
another letter dated 06.06.2024 to respondent No.1 requesting waiver
of Right of Recompense and issuance of NOC and release of security
property documents. Again vide letter dated 26.07.2024, petitioner
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 5 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
requested security property documents. However, no action was taken
by the respondent No.1.
16. Hence, the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
17. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
respondent No.1 has wrongly calculated the interest charged and is in
violation of the terms and conditions of the OTR sanctioned on
16.08.2021. Respondent No.1 bank has alleged the due of Rs. 8.43
crores for the first time in its counter-affidavit and the same has been
done without any notice, prior demand or intimation. Possession
Notice dated 27.05.2023 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
Act has no mention of the said Rs. 8.43 crores and hence, its recovery
is beyond the statutory notice and such new claim is abuse of process
of law.
18. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 is in violation of OTR
sanctioned on 16.08.2021, by alleging that the concessions was
withdrawn due to petitioner’s default. As per Clause No. 10 of OTR
scheme, the respondent No.1 was required to give prior intimation to
the petitioner before modifying/ withdrawing sanctioned conditions,
however, neither did the respondent No.1 gave any such prior
intimation before allegedly withdrawing the concession nor did the
petitioner ever gave any acceptance. Further, respondent No.1 has not
brought forward any document proving withdrawal of OTR
concessions. Additionally, respondent No.1 could not rely upon
Clause No. 10 of OTR as (i) grant of concession is the foundation of
the scheme and no clause can be inserted or interpreted which would
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 6 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
obliterate the scheme itself; (ii) Clause No.10 cannot be applied
retrospectively, as in the present case, both respondent No.1 and
petitioner acted upon the original concession and the transaction was
concluded; (iii) petitioner has already cleared the dues and in absence
of any valid reason, Clause No. 10 could not have been pressed; (iv)
even otherwise, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner, respondent No.1 could not withdraw the concession; and
lastly (v) respondent No.1 demanding the interest amount is not only
in violation of RBI Policy but also amounts to rewriting of the
contract and accounts. Further, the respondent No.1 gave permission
to sell the security property vide letter dated 04.09.2023, which is sold,
but its title deeds are still with the respondent No.1 and the respondent
No.1 while granting permission to sell never stated that they have a
right to recompense.
19. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 is also in violation of Clause
No. 16 of the OTR scheme under which penal interest can only be
charged in certain stipulated situations. The petitioner paid penal
interest on outstanding amount from 02.07.2022 to 28.03.2024, as
levied by the respondent No.1, which charged penal interest in final
calculation of dues due to default in repayment, before showing
balance as zero. On 16.08.2021 when OTR was sanctioned, 2 loan
accounts out of 3 were closed and hence, withdrawing concession for
such closed accounts, amounts to double jeopardy. Additionally, the
respondent No.1 is in violation of RBI Circular dated 13.09.2023, by
withholding the original title documents of security property despite
closure of the loan account.
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 7 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
20. It is submitted that Zonal Shastra Division (office contesting the
present case) vide letter dated 01.04.2024 informed the Branch
Manager LCB DCM Building branch of respondent No.1 that “…to
close the cash credit account and release the charge over the
securities ... ”. Despite, the same the respondent No.1 is opposing this
petition.
21. Lastly, it is submitted that there are no outstanding dues against the
petitioner and hence, the respondent No. 1 has no reason to either
retain the security property’s title deeds or refuse issuance of NOCs.
Even though Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides
respondent No.1 right to retain title deeds of the security property to
recover the balance amounts from the petitioner, however, the
petitioner has no balance amounts due and payable.
22. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-
a. Ambience Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors,
W.P.(C) 13438/2023, 2024:DHC:4932.
b. National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan,
(1998) 7 SCC 66.
c. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd v. Union Of India, AIR 1987 SC
2414.
d. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer And Ors,
(2005) 1 SCC 625.
e. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd v. Union Of India And Ors, (2012)
11 SCC 1.
f. State Of Bihar and Others v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, (2022) 17
SCC 420.
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 8 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
g. Bakul Oil Industries & Anr v. State Of Gujarat & Anr, AIR 1987
SC 142.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1
23. Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1 bank,
submits that it was due to petitioner’s own failure to comply with the
OTR that lead to withdrawal of concessions and application of
contractual rate of interest. Although petitioner has paid an amount of
Rs. 42.24 crores, however, it had not repaid entire outstanding amount
with applicable rate of interest but on OTR’s concessional rate to
which it was not entitled as the same failed due to petitioner’s own
default.
24. It is submitted that petitioner’s account has been classified as NPA
and is now under recovery mechanism. After an account is classified
as NPA, bank do not recognize income on accrual basis and also do
not charge interest to the main account and reverse the interest that
was charged but not collected prior to the account turning into NPA.
The bank monitors the interest accruing on the loan and the same is
recorded in a “Memorandum account” or an “Interest Suspense
Account” and the bank stops debiting interest to the main account.
Petitioner’s loan account was subjugated to the said post-NPA
procedure and hence, zero balance in statement of account does not
discharge petitioner of its liability. Petitioner still has approximately
Rs. 8.43 crores due as on 01.07.2024, along with future interest.
25. It is submitted that respondent No.1 is acting in compliance of the RBI
Master Circular on Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset
Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances dated
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 9 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
01.07.2014 (RBI/2014- 15/74;DBOD.No.BP.BC.9/21.04.048/2014-
15), which allows 100% recovery of recompense amount where
restructuring facilities were given below base rate.
26. It is submitted that the reliance of the petitioner on the email dated
01.04.2024 sent by respondent No.1 bank’s Zonal Sastra Centre, Delhi
to LCB Delhi, is misleading and untenable as the same was an internal
communication between two branches of respondent No.1 bank. The
mentioning of “the total memoranda has to be deposited” in the said
mail indicates necessity to deposit and not confirmation of deposit.
Further, the email only reflects petitioner’s assertion since total
memoranda has been deposited and account should be closed and
security be released and not acceptance from the bank for anything.
Further, the email also stated that closure of the account and release of
securities was subjected to verification and guidelines. However, since
the OTR scheme failed due to petitioner’s default, the concessions
were withdrawn, and the petitioner is now required to pay the entire
outstanding amount including interest/ penal interest, in accordance
with prior sanction before the OTR.
27. Lastly, in response to the Statement of Account showing zero balance
as on 31.03.2024 it is submitted that while closing the CC account, the
respondent No.1 realised that the LCB DCM Building Branch applied
concessional rate of interest, as per the sanctioned OTR, while
calculating the memoranda dues. However, due to petitioner’s default
in complying with terms and conditions of OTR, concessions were
withdrawn and standard rate of interest were to be applied, which the
branch inadvertently failed to modify while calculating interest, which
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 10 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
eventually resulted in Statement of Account showing zero balance and
only later, after the said error was spotted, the interest was re-
calculated and hence, the respondent No.1 bank is now charging the
applicable rate of interest.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
28. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
29. It is an admitted position of facts that the petitioner took loan from the
respondent No.1 bank and an OTR was sanctioned vide letter dated
16.08.2021. The disagreement leading to issues between the parties is
regarding alleged due of Rs. 8.43 crores plus future interest still
remaining due against the petitioner, due to which the respondent
No.1 refuses to close the loan account of the petitioner, issue the NOC
and release the title deeds of the security property.
30. The respondent No.1 claims that although the petitioner has paid an
amount of Rs. 42.24 crores, however, since it failed comply with the
terms and conditions of the OTR, the concessions were withdrawn and
contractual rate of interest was applied, instead of OTR’s concessional
rate, due to which the petitioner still has Rs. 8.43 crores plus future
interest in outstanding. In response to the same the learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn my attention Clause No. 10 of the
“OVERALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (FOR ALL THE
FACILITIES)” of the letter dated 16.08.2021, to assert that the
respondent No.1 was required to intimate the petitioner and take its
acceptance before modifying or withdrawing the sanctioned
conditions. The said Clause No.10 reads as under:-
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 11 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
“10. The Bank shall have the right to withdraw or modify
all/any of the sanctioned conditions or stipulate fresh
conditions, under intimation to the borrower. Borrower shall
undertake to give their acceptance to these stipulations.”
31. A perusal of the aforesaid clause, shows that the bank is required to
intimate the borrower about any modification/withdrawal of the
sanctioned conditions and the borrower is required to give its
undertaking accepting the same. However, the letter dated 16.08.2021
also contains “additional stipulation along with terms & condition
proposed as per Annexure-I” and the respondent No.1 has placed
heavy reliance on its Clause Nos. 10 and 11, which read as under:-
“10. The Bank reserves the right to withdraw the
concessions granted without assigning any reason.
11. The Bank reserves the right to review/withdraw
concession granted based on deterioration in credit quality
(Internal Rating/ External Rating) of the borrower.”
32. Hence, it is stated by the learned standing counsel for the respondent
No.1 that in terms of Clause Nos. 10 and 11 of the “additional
stipulation along with terms & condition proposed as per Annexure-I”,
the respondent No.1 bank had the right to withdraw the concession,
which in the present case was withdrawn. Therefore, the petitioner is
liable to pay Rs. 8.43 crores plus future interest.
33. A perusal of the clauses, reproduced above, shows that the bank has
the right to withdraw the concessions without providing any reason,
based on deterioration in credit quality of the borrower. A
comprehensive reading of both the clauses i.e., Clause No. 10 of the
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 12 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
“OVERALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (FOR ALL THE
FACILITIES)” and Clause No. 10 of the “additional stipulation along
with terms & condition proposed as per Annexure-I”, in my
considered view, provides that although the bank can withdraw
concessions without providing any reasons, still it needs to inform the
borrower of the same and the borrower’s undertaking should be taken.
The words “ without assigning any reason” in Clause No. 10 of
“additional stipulation along with terms & condition proposed as per
Annexure-I” cannot be read to mean as not informing the borrower at
all, especially when Clause No. 10 of “OVERALL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS (FOR ALL THE FACILITIES)”, requires the bank to
intimate the borrower about modification/ withdrawal of the
sanctioned conditions. If the proposition as forwarded by the
respondent No.1 is to be accepted, Clause No. 10 of “OVERALL
TERMS AND CONDITIONS (FOR ALL THE FACILITIES)”
becomes redundant and it would be clearly overwritten by Clause No.
10 of “additional stipulation along with terms & condition proposed as
per Annexure-I”. The same cannot be allowed.
34. The respondent No.1 did not inform the petitioner about its decision to
withdraw the concession due to alleged violation of the terms and
conditions of the OTR and the respondent No.1 has failed to bring on
record any communication sent to petitioner informing it about the
withdraw of the OTR based concessions. Without informing the
petitioner the concessions under the OTR cannot be withdrawn
unilaterally.
35. Additionally, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s Statement of
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 13 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
Account reflected zero balance as on 31.03.2024 and the explanation
provided by the respondent No.1 for the same being an inadvertent
error on the part of the bank to modify the concessionary rates, do not
inspire confidence. In the paragraph No.5 of the Short Affidavit dated
03.07.2025 filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in compliance of
order dated 02.04.2025, it has been stated as under:-
“5. That the Answering Respondent Bank respectfully
submits that at the time of closure of the Cash Credit (CC)
account, it was observed by the higher authority of
Answering Respondent Bank that its LCB DCM Building
Branch that the concessional rate of interest, as per the
terms of the sanctioned OTR, had been applied while
calculating the memoranda dues, and accordingly, the
Petitioner deposited the said amount. However, the OTR
subsequently failed due to the Petitioner's non-compliance
with its stipulated terms and conditions, necessitating
withdrawal of the concessions and application of the
standard rate of interest. It is submitted that the Branch,
while running interest calculations in the Core Banking
System (CBS), inadvertently failed to modify the
concessionary rates, resulting in a Statement of Account
reflecting zero balance, as annexed by the Petitioner in its
writ petition. Upon discovery of the said error, the interest
was duly recalibrated in CBS, and the Bank is now charging
the applicable rate of interest, for which the Petitioner
remains liable.”
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 14 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
36. The same does not find merit with me. Firstly, while the respondent
No.1 constantly claims that it was due to petitioner’s failure to comply
with the OTR scheme that the OTR granted vide letter dated
16.08.2021 failed and concession was withdrawn and prior interest
rates again became applicable. But, the respondent No.1 has not
explained as to which terms and conditions of the OTR the petitioner
failed to comply with or any communication/decision of the bank
which forms the basis of this decision. Although, as discussed above,
as per Clause No. 10 of the “additional stipulation along with terms &
condition proposed as per Annexure-I”, the bank could withdraw
concessions without any reasoning, yet there has to be some
documentation leading to the said decision and while the respondent
No.1 need not provide any reason to the petitioner, it has to inform the
petitioner and at least bring forward some communication, which
shows bank’s decisions to withdraw the concession. This stand of the
respondent No.1 that since the petitioner failed to comply with the
OTR’s terms and conditions, the concession under the OTR were
withdrawn, has been only disclosed for the first time in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 to the present petition.
37. Secondly, the fact remains that respondent No.1 did in fact applied
concessionary rates at the time of closure of CC account, while
calculating the memoranda dues and accordingly, the petitioner
deposited the amount and made sure that the Statement of Account
shows zero balance. I am not able to agree with the respondent No.1
contentions that the same happened due to an inadvertent mistake.
38. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 15 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
attention to an email dated 01.04.2024 sent by the Chief Manager,
Zonal Sastra, Delhi, to the LCB DCM and the said email shows that
one branch of the respondent No.1 bank requested other branch to
close petitioner’s account and release the securities. Per Contra , the
learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1 asserts that firstly,
the said email was an internal communication between two branches
of the respondent No.1 bank and was never meant for the petitioner
and hence, petitioner’s reliance on the same is untenable. Secondly,
the email only reflects petitioner’s assertion that total memoranda has
been deposited and does not indicate confirmation of the said deposit.
The said email is extracted below:-
“Dear Sir,
In the account of M/s M.A. Enterprises the total memoranda
has to be deposited and as per customer commitment total
memoranda has been deposited by the party, the party has
made request of its cash credit account and release of bank
charge from the security engaged in the account.
In view of the total memoranda deposited by the party you
are requested to close the cash credit account and release
the charge over the securities as per bank extent guidelines
if otherwise the same is in order.
Regards,
Zonal SASTRA, Delhi
Chief Manager”
39. After perusal of the email, reproduced above, I am unable to agree
with respondent No.1. While the first paragraph of the email mentions
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 16 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
petitioner’s stand by stating that “ as per customer commitment total
memoranda has been deposited ”. The words in the second paragraph
i.e., “ In view of the total memoranda deposited by the party you are
requested to close the cash credit account …. ”, shows bank’s
confirmation that total memoranda has infact been deposited and
thereby, it has “ requested to close the cash credit account and release
the charge over the securities ”. Further, the words “ as per bank extent
guidelines if otherwise the same is in order ” is only benchmark line
and does not indicate any anything specific.
CONCLUSION
40. The aforesaid discussion has led to following conclusion: (i) the
respondent No.1 continued to show OTR based sanctioned balances;
(ii) no documentations/communication has been brought forward by
the respondent No.1 to show when and why OTR concessions were
withdrawn and that it informed the petitioner of the same; (iii) email
dated 01.04.2024 sent by the Chief Manager, Zonal SASTRA, Delhi,
to the LCB DCM shows that one branch of respondent No.1
confirmed that total memoranda has been deposited by the petitioner.
Hence, to my mind, OTR based concession applies to the closing
balances of the petitioner, as per which the Statement of Account
shows zero balance and petitioner has cleared all its dues. The only
reason for not releasing the title deeds of the security property
presumably seems to be that the respondent No.1 is in control of the
same and seeks to unilaterally make new calculations of interest and
charge the same from the petitioner. The same cannot be allowed.
41. For the aforesaid reason, the present writ petition is allowed, and the
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 17 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03
respondent No1. is directed to:
41.1 issue a No-Dues Certificate for the petitioner’s Account No.
4904008700000633.
41.2 release the title deeds in relation to Warehouse Plot No. N3B3,
admeasuring 8400.00 square meters in the property known as
Verna Industrial Estate, Phase-III-B, surveyed under Survey No.
261, situated within the local limits of Village Panchayat of
Loutolim, Taluka Salcete, District South Goa, State of Goa.
41.3 issue the necessary communications to respondent No.2
informing about the closure of the outstanding shown in the
account of petitioner updating the credit score of the petitioner.
42. The said direction shall be complied with by the respondent No.1
within one week from the pronouncement of this judgment.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 01, 2026/ HG
W.P. (C) 11344/2024 Page 18 of 18
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:26:03