Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Narendrr Kumar Sharma vs Raj Financial Corp And Ors on 2 November, 2012
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.9270/2012. Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors. Date of order : November 2, 2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajnish Gupta for the petitioner. Shri V.S. Yadav for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition is directed against the order of the settlement committee of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation dated 17/5/2012 by which application of the petitioner for one time settlement as per One-Time Settlement Scheme was dealt with and decided. The said committee required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,94,512/- less upfront amount of Rs.20,700/- deposited by him on 30/3/2012 i.e. at a net settlement of Rs.3,73,812/- payable in six equal monthly installments commencing from 1/6/2012 with the further direction that no interest would be charged upto 31/5/2012 but thereafter w.e.f. 1/6/2012, interest @13% p.a. on the unpaid settlement amount was held chargeable.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner and they founded their finding of impugned order on the basis of decree passed by the civil court whereby the District Judge Sawai Madhopur vide order dated 16/12/1994 decreed the application filed by RFC for a sum of Rs.3,94,512/- but that decree was set-aside vide judgment dated 30/9/2010 (Ann.2) by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the said court. Contention is that Scheme for One-Time Settlement floated by the respondents is applicable to all the debtors regardless of fact that any litigation is pending or has been decided.
The settlement committee has wrongly held that one-time settlement scheme supra does not apply to the transport vehicle Loan. In this connection, learned counsel has cited the caption of the scheme as One-time settlement scheme for settlement of NPAs (except DDW cases), second clause of second part of the scheme.
It is contended that in that scheme, all such of the loans above Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. amount disbursed + other money debited in the account since beginning _ incentive paid / payable to the revenue authorities (if applicable) minus total payment made since inception till date of application or 60% of principal sum outstanding + other money + incentive / payable to the revenue authorities (if applicable) whichever is lower, should be settled. Respondents deliberately did not apply that clause of the scheme to the case of the petitioner and rather relied on the decree of the civil court, which was set-aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that litigation is still pending and the learned District Judge is ceased with the matter. His case was considered not once but twice but petitioner did not honour the order of the settlement committee on either occasion. Even then, the settlement committee decided to settle the loan account for a sum of Rs.3,94,512/-. The loan was disbursed to the petitioner way back in the year 1985 and therefore there was sustainable amount together with interest i.e. Rs.69.13 lacs as on 1/3/2012, whereas what that the settlement committee decided to charge was very negligible as compared to total sum.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I find that the scheme is not comprehensive. It does not make any distinction within those, who were having loan account and no litigation is pending or those where litigation is pending. One-Time Settlement Scheme laying down condition for settlement of transport loan as per part II of One Time Settlement Schemes 2011-12 of Annexure-B. In the case of debt amount for more than Rs.1,00,000/-, it is provided that amount disbursed + other money debited in the account since beginning _ incentive paid / payable to the revenue authorities (if applicable) minus total payment made since inception till date of application or 60% of principal sum outstanding + other money + incentive / payable to the revenue authorities (if applicable) whichever is lower, shall be settled. In the case of the petitioner, it is not clear as to why in the case of petitioner, this clause was not applied. The settlement committee has ostensibly relied on the decree of the civil court, which decree has been set-aside. In para 11 of the reply, the respondents have stated that the said scheme is excluded and not applicable to the loan account to the category of transport vehicle loan cases. Such a plea is factually founded because very caption of Part II of One-Time Settlement Scheme for Settlement of one-time settlement of 2011-12 is One-time settlement scheme for settlement of NPAs (except DDW cases). Mere pending of civil suit / litigation before the court of District Judge, does not make any difference because settlement scheme applies regardless of pendency of any suit or otherwise of litigation and no exception or exclusion has been made with regard to those cases wherefore litigation is pending.
In the circumstances, petition deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. Impugned-order dated 17/5/2012 is set-aside. Matter is remanded back to the said settlement committee to decide case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with One-Time Settlement Scheme floated vide their Circular dated 08/15-07-2011 and pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is provided to the said settlement committee of the respondents.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
Anil/134 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed Anil Kumar Goyal Sr.P.A. Cum JW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION No.7965/2012.
IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.9270/2012.
Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors.
Date of order : November 2, 2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajnish Gupta for the petitioner. Shri V.S. Yadav for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:-
Consequent upon disposal of the writ petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly rejected.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
Anil/134 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed Anil Kumar Goyal Sr.P.A. Cum JW