Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 21.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Shifali Gupta, aged 41, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, versus Respondents Punjab National Bank (PNB) and its Branch Manager, Channi Rama, Jammu.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal (RFA No. 42/2026) against the Commercial Court, Jammu order dated 30.06.2026 that dismissed the appellant’s application for a temporary injunction.
  • Background: Gupta obtained a term loan of ₹4,16,84,000 on 12.02.2019 (Loan Account No. 338600SA00000022) at 9.15% p.a. (B1 risk rating). An additional loan of ₹45,57,000 was granted on 27.05.2020 (Loan Account No. 338600SA00000031) at 8.65% p.a.
  • Allegations: Gupta claimed the bank unilaterally restructured the loans, downgraded her risk rating from B1 to B3, and imposed excessive interest rates (rising from 11.95% to 14.20% between Dec‑2021 and Feb‑2023). She sought a mandatory injunction to restore original terms, void the restructuring letter dated 10.12.2021, and recover excess interest of ₹1,82,19,512.
  • Bank’s Position: PNB asserted that Gupta herself requested restructuring via a letter dated 11.08.2021 for a 10‑year tenure extension. The bank, after internal review, sanctioned a two‑year extension on 10.12.2021, setting interest at 11.90% for a B‑3 rating. The sanction letter was signed by Gupta and the guarantor. The bank also cited Section 21‑A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, arguing the suit is barred.
  • Procedural History: Prior to this suit, Gupta filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court (withdrawn), approached the Banking Ombudsman (dismissed as non‑maintainable), and lodged a consumer complaint (withdrawn).

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the interim injunction, finding no prima facie case and noting that any alleged loss is fully compensable in monetary terms.
  • The Court emphasized that the restructuring was voluntarily consented to by Gupta, invoking the legal maxim qui approbat non reprobat (one who approves cannot reject).
  • It concluded that the alleged over‑charging of interest does not constitute irreparable injury and therefore does not satisfy the test for injunction.
  • The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit; no relief was granted to the appellant, and the bank’s actions were upheld.

Topics: Loan Restructuring, Injunction, Banking Law