Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of fabrics. It applied for financial accommodation to Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"). The petitioner duly furnished necessary documents along with its application. The project was estimated at Rs. 1210.00 lacs. However, the bank sanctioned Rs. 650.00 lacs and asked the petitioner to deposit upfront fee @1.05% of the sanctioned amount being Rs. 6,82,500.00. The petitioner duly paid the said sum without any protest. The parties, thereafter, negotiated the terms of the agreement on which the sanction was to be implemented and actual financial accommodation to be extended. The petitioner, however, did not agree with the terms so prescribed by the bank. The bank ultimately cancelled the sanction. The petitioner accepted such cancellation, however, asked for refund of upfront fee which was refused by the bank. Hence the writ petition was filed.
(2.) Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order dated April 8, 2003. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) The learned Single Judge held as follows: (i) Upfront fee so paid by the petitioner/appellant was nothing but processing fee required for process of the application by the bank and hence not refundable. (ii) Bank processed the application and ultimately sanctioned the amount of Rs. 650.00 lac. Hence the process in grant of financial assistance was complete and the bank was entitled to the processing fee. The petitioner did not accept the terms and condition of such loan and as such the sanction was cancelled. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to refund of the processing fee. (iii) Before sanction of the loan the Bank was to examine various aspects including feasibility of the project to grant such sanction and for such process the bank was entitled to charge processing fee. Whether such fee was on the higher side or not was a question which was not possible to be examined by the Court. (iv) The petitioner never objected to such processing fee being collected and paid such fee without any protest. Hence, question of refund did not arise.;