Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Under Article 226 Against Decisions Of Lender/Banker Unless Compelling Reasons Like Statutory Violations: Kerala High Court
Case: Binoy Paulose v Union of India
Coram: Justice K.Babu
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 11939 OF 2023
Court Observation: “It is trite that lending has always been the discretion of lending institutions on broad parameters. This Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot replace the wisdom of the lender/banker in the process of lending unless there are compelling reasons, in a sense that there are all-around violations of the rules and regulations or any of the statutory provisions in this regard.”
“It is submitted that after analysing the inputs submitted by the petitioner the bank concluded that the borrower would not be able to generate positive cash flow, which would enable them to repay the obligation till the financial year 2030, which makes the proposal commercially not viable.”
“In the present case, the bank has carefully analysed the proposal for restructuring based on the inputs submitted by the petitioner himself and came to the conclusion that the proposal was not viable. It is evident from the materials placed before the Court that the bank has considered the entire relevant aspects while rejecting Ext.P13 proposal.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Under Article 226 Against Decisions Of Lender/Banker, Kerala High Court
