- (1.) THIS Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Having heard the said learned Advocates, it appears that the facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:-
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioners are in the business of processing tea leaves and they own a Tea Garden in Assam and that the petitioners have been compelled to file the writ petition because the respondent-Central Bank of India authorities have refused to release the security that was pledged for securing the loan and/or advance made to the petitioner No. 1 by the said respondent-Central Bank of India authorities through its branch office at jalpaiguri. The petitioners have stated in their writ petition that the petitioner no. 2 being one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 has common interest in two other companies namely, SRK Tea Processing Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SRK) and Gurjangjhora Tea and Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GTI)and that the petitioner No. 1 and SRK and GTI are run and managed by the petitioner No. 2 and the said three companies are known in the market as Kalyani group. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the said respondent-Central bank of India authorities advanced loan on the security of assets to the said three companies and the loan accounts are independent and separate and that the mortgage of immovable properties by way of security, obtained by the respondent-Central Bank of India authorities from the said three companies, are also independent and separate. The petitioners have further alleged that there was no common guarantee or mortgage so far as the petitioner No. 1 and the other two companies are concerned and there was no cross-guarantee also. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 and SRK and GTI have been maintaining their accounts and running their business separately and independently though these are run and managed by the Kalyani Group. The petitioners have alleged that the financial services that was extended by the respondent-Central Bank of India authorities was never beneficial to the petitioner no. 1 's interest particularly owing to un-timely sanction of loan at a higher rate of interest. In short, the petitioners have been suffering huge loss of profit owing to the alleged deficiency in service and/or negligence on the part of the respondent-Central Bank of India authorities. The petitioners have alleged that in spite of several representations being made to the respondent-Central Bank of India authorities, the said respondents did not look into the grievance of the petitioners, and the petitioners have approached the respondent-UCO Bank authorities and requested the respondent-UCO Bank authorities to extend finance by taking over the accounts lying with the Jalpaiguri Branch of the said Central Bank of india-respondents. The respondent-UCO Bank authorities sanctioned the credit facility in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners made a written representation dated 20. 3. 2007 to the respondent No. 1 to release the security of assets being the lease deeds of Bargara Tea Estate and to provide the no objection certificate (in short, NOC) to the Authorised Officer of M/s. UCO Bank, Jalpaiguri subject to clearing of the petitioner No. 1 's debit balance lying with the respondent No. 6 by banker's Cheque of UCO Bank, Jalpaiguri. The petitioners, in the said letter dated 20. 3. 2007, requested the respondent No. 6 to provide the details of the dues in respect of the petitioner No. l's loan accounts. It appears that several correspondences were exchanged between the petitioners and the Central Bank of India-authorities in this regard. It appears that a letter dated 8. 5. 2007 was written by the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 10 acknowledging receipt of a certain letter and a pay order for a certain amount from the respondent No. 10 for depositing in various advance accounts of the petitioner No. 1. It further appears from the said letter that the respondent No. 6 had referred the matter to the higher authorities and that till the respondent No. 6 further hears from such higher authorities the matter is kept in abeyance. It further appears that the respondent no. 10 wrote a letter dated 10. 5. 2007 to the respondent No. 6 reminding the respondent No. 6 with regard to the pay order given to the respondent No. 6 towards full repayment of the outstanding dues in several loan accounts standing in the name. of the petitioner No. 1 and requesting the respondent No. 6 to release the securities at the earliest.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, by a letter dated 12. 5. 2007 the respondent No. 6 wrote to the petitioner No. 1 stating that out of the three companies of K. K. Kalyani group only the petitioner No. 1 is doing well and the other two companies are running into loss and that there is a common guarantor (Mr. K. K. Kalyani) to all the three companies and that the request for allowing to shift only one account, i. e. of the petitioner No. 1, cannot be considered in isolation since Mr. K. K. Kalyani owns all the three companies. The respondent No. 6 further stated in the said letter that Mr. K. K. Kalyani should take all the three accounts of the Group to UCO Bank and NOC to shift the accounts can be given only when the entire group of accounts are shifted. Such letter dated 12. 5. 2007 has been challenged in the writ petition by the petitioners and the petitioners have further prayed, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 and its men and agents should be directed to release the security of assets in favour of the respondent No. 7 against the payment of a certain sum of money (as mentioned in the writ petition) towards outstanding dues of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid pay order, which was issued by UCO Bank, was retained by the Central bank of India for sometime and thereafter it was returned to the UCO Bank, and the entire amount which was outstanding, according to the petitioners, was duly tendered. The said learned Counsel submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 do not have any right to withhold the security any more. According to the petitioner's learned Counsel the amount that was tendered to the respondent-Central Bank of India authorities should be accepted as undisputed since the Central Bank of india has not shown either in the affidavit or otherwise any higher amount to be due and payable by the petitioners. The said learned Counsel has questioned and disputed the existence of the concept of Group as contended by the Central bank of India. According to the petitioner's learned Counsel the three companies are separate juristic personalities and loans were granted on the basis of the requirement of individual companies taking into consideration their financial strength individually and separately. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the sanction letters were separate and the asset of one company was not taken into consideration for grant of loan to another company. According to the petitioner's learned Counsel the fact that Mr. K. K. Kalyani gave guarantees in respect of the different accounts of the aforesaid three companies cannot stand in the way of the Central Bank of India authorities to release the securities of assets furnished by the petitioners. According to the said learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. K. Kalyani's guarantee in respect of GTI and SRK will remain valid and operative in respect of the loan accounts of the said two companies even if the security furnished by the petitioners is released by the central Bank of India authorities.;