“Dishonest Borrowers Cannot Claim Unjust Enrichment” Rules Bombay High Court in Loan Recovery Case Involving Sundeep Polymers
The Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment by Justice Manish Pitale, emphasized the accountability of borrowers in loan recovery processes. The court firmly stated, “Borrowers like the company in liquidation, who show scant regard to their obligations, cannot invoke jurisdiction for seeking reliefs.” The judgment came in a series of writ petitions involving Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited and the now liquidated company, Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The bank had sought recovery of loans amounting to several crores advanced to Sundeep Polymers, which the company and its directors challenged. The core of the dispute revolved around the issuance of recovery certificates under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which were later cancelled by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This cancellation was based on the claim by Sundeep Polymers that the loan amounts were never actually disbursed, a stand that the court has now found to be dishonest.
Justice Pitale, in his judgment, criticized the approach of the Assistant Registrar and Joint Registrar in handling the case, stating they committed “a manifest error in exercising jurisdiction.” He added that their misinterpretation of the scope under Section 101 of the MCS Act led to an erroneous cancellation of recovery certificates.
The court’s decision also tackled the issue of refunding the deposit amounts to the company in liquidation, concluding that there was no case of unjust enrichment. “Equitable principles ought to be invoked in favor of the co-operative bank and against the company in liquidation and its directors,” Justice Pitale remarked, emphasizing the responsibility of borrowers towards their loan obligations.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters to the Assistant Registrar for fresh consideration. However, the petitions filed by the company in liquidation for the refund of deposit amounts were dismissed.
This judgment underlines the importance of integrity in financial dealings and reinforces the legal responsibilities of borrowers towards their lenders, especially in the cooperative banking sector. The case sets a precedent in addressing the challenges faced by financial institutions in loan recovery processes due to dishonest claims by borrowers.
Date of Decision: 14-03-2024
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, BOMBAY OF SUNDEEP POLYMERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
