THE BRANCH MANAGER AXIS BANK LTD RAJAT NATH PYNE vs KHATU SHYAM TRADING CO AND ORS — FMA /210/2026

Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0055732026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

12th February 2026

Filing Number

MAT /198/2026

Filing Date

05-02-2026

Registration No

FMA /210/2026

Registration Date

05-02-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR , HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR , HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Residuary ( 26 )

Judicial Branch

FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (FMA) SECTION

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

NO ACT Section NA

Petitioner(s)

THE BRANCH MANAGER AXIS BANK LTD RAJAT NATH PYNE

Respondent(s)

KHATU SHYAM TRADING CO AND ORS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR , HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

12-02-2026

FOR ADMISSION

23-03-2026

APPLICATION (GR - IX)

19-03-2026

APPLICATION (GR - IX)

Orders

23-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR,HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA

Summary The High Court at Calcutta set aside the lower court's order directing Axis Bank to refund Rs. 7,82,282.02 and Rs. 17,70,000 to the borrower for prepayment penalties. The court found that the RBI's August 2, 2019 circular clarified earlier guidance and permits foreclosure charges on business loans, and that the borrower was a medium enterprise (not small), making the previous judgment inapplicable. The case has been remitted for fresh hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court at Calcutta set aside the lower court's order directing Axis Bank to refund Rs. 7,82,282.02 and Rs. 17,70,000 to the borrower for prepayment penalties. The court found that the RBI's August 2, 2019 circular clarified earlier guidance and permits foreclosure charges on business loans, and that the borrower was a medium enterprise (not small), making the previous judgment inapplicable. The case has been remitted for fresh hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case