Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) A communication dated November 13, 2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners caused a bank guarantee to be issued initially for a sum of Rs.2.55 Crores. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.2.74 Crores. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the impugned letter. He submits that, the justification contained in such letter cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. He submits that, a sum of Rs.6,64,500/- was obtained by the bank from time to time ostensibly towards margin money and commission and that, the bank should refund the same. The bank guarantee was not invoked. The original bank guarantee was returned. He submits that, the bank subsequent to the expiry of the validity period of the bank guarantee returned the security deposit.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the bank refers to the terms and conditions of the credit facilities governing the parties. She submits, referring to the circular dated November 5, 2015 issued by the bank that, the bank is entitled to charge commission with effect from January 18, 2013. The bank guarantee was issued subsequent to such circular. She also refers to the sanction letter dated January 31, 2018 which prescribes that the bank will be entitled to processing fees. She submits that, the bank obtained commission and processing fees from the petitioners for issuing the bank guarantee and that, the bank is entitled to do so.;