Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Assistant General Manager State Bank Of ... vs Tanya Energy Enterprises Through Its ... on 18 September, 2023
1
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 33541/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-12-2022
in WA No. 918/2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amravati)
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE
BANK OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
TANYA ENERGY ENTERPRISES THROUGH
ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ALLURI
LAKSHMI NARASIMHA VARMA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.185917/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.185919/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 18-09-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR
Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Our attention is drawn to Clause 2.1 of the One Time Settlement1 Scheme dated 12.10.2020. Clause 2.1 (iii) of the OTS Signature Not Verified Scheme reads:
Digitally signed bySWETA BALODI Date: 2023.09.20 18:24:19 IST Reason:
1 For short, “OTS”.2
“Compromise cases” where repayment has already commenced as per the agreed terms, are not eligible. However, cases of failed compromise settlement where the amount is not received within the stipulated time can be considered afresh. Cancellation of failed compromise letter to be issued to the borrower before considering application under OTS.” The first contention of the petitioners – the Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager of State Bank of India, Siripuram, Vishakhapatnam branch,2 that there was an earlier compromise settlement/sanction dated 23.11.2018, would not be a good ground and a relevant consideration to reject the OTS proposal under the scheme dated 12.10.2020. The compromise settlement had failed since amounts were not received by SBI within the stipulated time.
The second contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is predicated on the answer to question no. 7 under the clarifications dated 19.10.2020 to the OTS Scheme. The question and answer is reproduced below:
S. Question Answer
No.
7. Branch has conducted In the same
auctions on 08.03.2019 and situation, we had
12.06.2019 and the obtained legal
successful bidders have opinion from DGM
paid 25% of the bid amount. (Law) in previous SBI In the meanwhile, the OTS 2019 Scheme, borrowers filed SA in DRT where the concluded Hyderabad - 1 on as under:
08.03.2019 and 11.06.2019 “To avoid unnecessary against the Auction and legal complications, complied the conditions of in our view it is not the DRT paid 20% amount of advisable to issue the total dues, then DRT any notice under the
2 For short, “SBI”.
3
has ordered not to confirm scheme where the bank the sale to the highest has already sold the bidders. The cases are property under e- still pending in DRT and auction and the sale posted to 23.10.2020 for process has not yet further arguments. The completed and where accounts are eligible in the borrowers have OTS 2020-21. Hence, we challenged the e- request you to please auction conducted by advise us whether the above the Bank and where said borrowers are eligible the auction has been for OTS in this knocked down in circumstances. favour of an auction purchaser and who has paid sale consideration.
The copy of legal opinion is attached for perusal.
Prima facie the clarification to question no. 7 applies to situations where an auction has been held and the bidder has deposited 25% of the bid amount. Clarification does not apply to situations where no bids were received. In the facts of the present case, it is noticed that 7 or 8 different properties are mortgaged. On auction bid was received in respect of one property. To an extent, the said clarification will not be applicable. Therefore, the question which will arise is whether borrower could have applied under the OTS scheme dated 12.10.2020 with respect to the arrears after excluding the amount receivable under the first auction. The clarification to question no. 7 does not relate to such situation. At this stage, we would not like to answer the said question in the absence of the respondent – M/s Tanya Energy Enterprises. Further, given the delay we may have to balance equities, rights and obligations.
4Accordingly, we deem appropriate to issue notice, returnable in the month of November 2023.
Notice will be served by all modes, including dasti.
(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR