Savvy Thakur
Published on: 02 December 2022 at 19:26 IST
The Delhi High Court ruled that a borrower cannot ask for an alteration of a contract by means of a writ petition and that a contract can only be altered.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected an appeal by Supertech Realtors against the order of the single-judge related to payment of dues by the real estate developer to a consortium of banks.
Supertech received a loan from the banks totaling ₹ 678 crores for the “Supernova” project in Sector 94, Noida.
On September 29, 2018, the Court was informed that Supertech was unable to repay the loan and that the account was categorized as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). After four years, on September 15, 2022, a One-Time Settlement (OTS) in the amount of 121.43 crores was agreed upon.
After Supertech, requested an amendment to the OTS in a subsequent letter, the amount was further reduced to 120.94 crores from 121.43 crores.
The loan account had been credited with 9.16 crores of rupees as a result of the RERA cutback, and the remaining 111.78 crores were to be paid in 24 equal installments of 4.66 crores of rupees after a three-month grace period from the date the borrower received the initial approval.
It was argued that the three-month moratorium period had to be calculated from August 18, rather than June 15, as the original OTS was amended on August 18.
The Single Judge, on the other hand, rejected the argument that the three-month moratorium should be calculated from the date the original sanction was given.
The bench concurred with the single judge, stating that the amended terms of the sanction made it crystal clear that the Rs. 111.78 crores needed to be paid in 24 installments after a three-month moratorium from the date the original sanction was given.
The court stated that the appellant had not paid the first installment, which was due by September 15, 2022.
It agreed with the finding of the single-judge that the petition was an attempt for renovation of contract which cannot be permitted in a writ petition.
“The One-Time Settlement which has been entered into between the consortium of Banks and the parties is purely a contract and a borrower cannot ask for alterations of the same by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The terms can be altered only through mutual consent between the parties.”
Hence, the court denied the appeal.
Case Title: Supertech Realtors Private Limited v. Bank of Maharashtra