Dismissed¶6

M/S Safety Carriers (India )Throu. Its Partner Jatinder Singh J Singh and Ors. v. Liquidator Rupee Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2025WP/11008/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M/s. Safety Carriers (India) v. Liquidator Rupee Co-Op. Bank Ltd.; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar J.; Civil Writ Petition 11008 of 2024; waiver of interest; cash credit facility; debit balance Rs.1,32,73,824; RBI restrictions 22 February 2013; Exhibit 32 agreement; 18 percent; 16 percent per annum; Co-operative Court dispute; original disputants; adjustment of Rs.1,11,36,000 and FDR Rs.18,35,421; enforce the bargain; no perversity; writ dismissed 25 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Once the amount under the cash credit facility has been availed and utilised, the obligation to pay interest flows directly from the agreement between the parties; waiver of interest was impermissible on the facts. ¶4

M/S Safety Carriers (India )Throu. Its Partner Jatinder Singh J Singh and Ors. vs Liquidator Rupee Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim for waiver of interest on the debit balance of Rs.1,32,73,824 (accruing from 22 February 2013) was sustainable, absent any contractual term or statutory provision permitting waiver.

¶4

Court's answer

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The law of contracts requires enforcement of the bargain between the parties unless a clear legal provision or equitable ground is established; none was demonstrated, hence the claim for waiver of interest cannot be accepted.

¶4

Key takeaways

The Courts below took a correct and lawful view: interest was payable from 22 February 2013 on Rs.1,32,73,824, the conclusion resting on the written agreement and established banking practice, with no perversity or legal infirmity.ratio¶5
There is no error in the impugned judgment and order; the writ petition stands dismissed.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), Civil Writ Petition No. 11008 of 2024, decided 25 November 2025: petition dismissed. Petitioners, original disputants before the Co-operative Court and users of a cash credit facility, had sought a declaration that their liability stood closed after 22 February 2019 and adjustment of Rs.1,11,36,000 paid and Rs.18,35,421 in fixed deposit receipts against the debit balance of Rs.1,32,73,824 standing as on 22 February 2013, when the Reserve Bank of India imposed restrictions on the bank. Held: once the facility amount was availed and utilised, the obligation to pay interest flowed directly from the parties' agreement; no contractual term or statutory provision permitting waiver of interest was shown, and the law of contracts required enforcement of the bargain absent a clear legal provision or equitable ground. The concurrent view of the Courts below that interest ran from 22 February 2013 rested on the written agreement (agreement at Exhibit 32; an earlier finding records 18 percent, the concluding finding records 16 percent per annum on Rs.1,32,73,824) and established banking practice, with no perversity or legal infirmity.

37-wp-11008-24

1 of 3

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11008 OF 2024

¶6

M/s. Safety Carriers (India) & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Liquidator Rupee Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

__________ Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 25 NOVEMBER 2025

¶9

PC :

¶10

The petitioners, who were the original disputants, approached the Co-operative Court. They sought a declaration that their liability towards the loan in question stood closed after 22 February 2019. They further prayed that the sum of Rs.1,11,36,000 paid by them and the amount of Rs.18,35,421 represented by fixed deposit receipts be adjusted towards their outstanding liability.

¶11

The case of the petitioners is that they had operated the cash credit facility up to 22 February 2013. They state that after that date the bank did not permit them to operate the account. They submit that the debit balance as on 22 February 2013 stood at Rs.1,32,73,824. They contend that the amounts mentioned earlier ought to be set off against this debit balance. They assert

¶12

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.25 17:52:28 +0530

¶13

2 of 3 37-wp-11008-24

¶14

that after such adjustment no further amount remains payable by them.

¶15

The Courts below recorded a clear finding on the basis of the evidence. They noted that on 22 February 2013 the Reserve Bank of India imposed restrictions on the bank. They also noted that on that date the petitioners were carrying a debit balance of Rs.1,32,73,824. They held that under the agreement placed on record at Exhibit 32 the petitioners were liable to repay the said sum along with interest at the rate of 18 percent. They concluded that interest from 22 February 2013 till the date of filing of the dispute or till realization could not be waived.

¶16

The petitioners have not shown any contractual term or statutory provision that permits waiver of interest. The liability of Rs.1,32,73,824 represents the debit balance in their account. The record shows that the petitioners had availed and utilized this amount in the regular course of their cash credit account. Once the amount has been utilized, the obligation to pay interest flows directly from the agreement executed between the parties. The law of contracts requires the Court to enforce the bargain between the parties unless a clear legal provision or equitable ground is established to the contrary. No such ground has been demonstrated. The plea for waiver of interest is unsupported by the contract and is inconsistent with settled principles governing financial liabilities. In these circumstances, the claim for waiver

37-wp-11008-24

3 of 3

cannot be accepted.

The Courts below have, therefore, taken a correct and lawful view. They examined the contractual terms, the conduct of the parties, and the date on which the debit balance stood crystallized. They found that interest at the rate of 16 percent per annum was payable from 22 February 2013 on the sum of Rs.1,32,73,824. This finding rests on the written agreement and on established banking practice. There is no perversity or legal infirmity in the conclusion. The determination of the Courts below is consistent with the evidence and with the governing principles of contract law.

¶21

Therefore, in my opinion, there is no error in the impugned Judgment and order. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

M/S Safety Carriers (India )Throu. Its Partner Jatinder Singh J Singh and Ors. v. Liquidator Rupee Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Safety Carriers (India )Throu. Its Partner Jatinder Singh J Singh and Ors. v. Liquidator Rupee Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Dairy Development

Quality Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary

Amit Vyas vs Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Dairy Development

Bapusaheb Ganpatrao Gawali vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societiesnashik Division and Ors.

Savala Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors. vs Mukta Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors.