Home Legal NewsRecent Development Delhi HC restrains YES Bank from declaring loan account as ‘NPA’ for non-payment of installment during COVID19 pandemic

Delhi HC restrains YES Bank from declaring loan account as ‘NPA’ for non-payment of installment during COVID19 pandemic

by Shreya

The Delhi High Court has restrained YES Bank from declaring a loan account as a ‘Non Performing Asset’ (NPA) for non payment of installment in COVID-19 lockdown in accordance with RBI Advisory On Moratorium.

The Single Bench of Justice Hari Shankar held that the Petitioner was entitled to the restoration of state of affairs, with respect to the loan account, as it existed on March 1, 2020. The Court also took into account the statement made by Reserve Bank of India Governor on April 17 regarding exclusion of lockdown period for NPA classification.

Also Read: While referring to the RBI’s March 27 Circular, the Delhi HC restrained Punjab and Sindh Bank from declaring NPA

Projectvala assignment service updated

The court observed in the interim order in the case in the case J R Toll Road Pvt Ltd vs Yes Bank Ltd.,

“I see no reason to give, either of the parties before me, a treatment different from that which is to be found in the order, dated 6th April, 2020 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Anant Raj Limited (supra). For the reasons which are already exhaustively set out in the said order, present petitioner would also be entitled to the restoration as status quo ante, as status of its account existed on 1st March, 2020. This relief would additionally be justified in view of the paragraph 17 of the statement by the Governor, RBI”

In the present case,

The Petitioner was constituted as a Special Purpose Vehicle for development of the NH-11. In 2011, the said SPV was granted a loan of ?389 crores by the Respondent Bank. The loan agreement required the Petitioner to inform the bank of any loss or damage, suffered owing to any force-majeure circumstances, such as earthquake, flood, typhoon etc. against which the petitioner may not have insured its property. Default in payment of the principal or interest amount empowered the respondent to terminate the loan agreement and take additional steps.

The petitioner was unable to generated revenue due to nationwide lockdown , thus the obligation to pay installment should stand deferred as per the moratorium announced by the Reserve Bank of India of its Circular dated 27/03/20.

Mr Krishnan highlighted that the new Circular entitled Petitioner’s account to restoration of the status-quo ante in respect thereof, as it existed on 1st March, 2020, on which date, it was, admittedly, in the SMA–II Category, the declaration of the petitioner’s account as NPA having come into effect only on 31st March, 2020.


Mr Ashish Chawla, (Respondent Bank counsel) countered  the declaration of the Petitioner’s account as NPA, is an automated procedure, which followed the guidelines issued of the IRAI and that, if paragraph 17 of the Statement made by the Governor of the RBI this morning is to be accorded a literal interpretation, it would fly in the face of the said guidelines. The NHAI’s Circular dated 25/03/20 will have no application in the present case as amounts were due from the Petitioner as far back as in December, 2019. The Petitioner ought to be directed to deposit the amounts due, with the bank within a period of at least one week after the lifting the closure of the Fee Plaza as thereafter the force majeure condition would cease to operate.

Mr Krishnan countered this submission of making payment within one week of opening of operations, by reiterating that the latest RBI Circular does not make the freezing of the status of the account, as on 1st March, 2020, subject to any payment.

The court applied the directions given in the case of Anant Raj Limited and gave order. The court noted that in the said case the Petitioner himself had promised to pay the installments within one week of resuming operations, the said promise is absent in the present case.

The court observed,

That despite the absence of such a promise, the court cannot subject the Petitioner in the present case to conditions which are different from the ones granted in the previous case. Therefore, while the court has made the Petitioner entitled to freezing of the status of the account, a duty has also been placed to pay the installments within a period of 5 weeks post the resuming of the operations.

Read the Order here:

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

× Chat with us on WhatsApp