Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rama Industries And Anr. vs The Assistant General Manager, State ... on 20 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2006P&H95, I(2007)BC476, (2006)143PLR239, AIR 2006 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 95, (2006) 2 PUN LR 239, (2007) 1 BANKCAS 476, (2005) 4 RECCIVR 726
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: D.K. Jain, Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta. J.
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept 75% of the balance amount of Rs. 17,80,445.52 in instalments in terms of one Time Settlement Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the firm has availed loan against the security of residential house situated in Mohalla Ramgali Rewari and land measuring 21 Kanals 5 Marlas and 3 Kanals 5 Marlas at Jhajjar Road, Rewari.
3. In terms of one time settlement scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2001, the respondent Bank issued a letter to the firm on 13-3-2001 Informing the conditions of one time settlement scheme. The said communication was made in view of the default in making the payments in repayment of the amount loaned by the bank to the petitioners. The firm on 30-3-2001 communicated its acceptance to the bank by payment of Rs. 17,70,000/- as a full and final settlement. The said communication reads as under:
Rama Industries Engineers & Manufacturers Rewari (Haryana) 30-3-2001 To The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rewari.
Sub : Final settlement of our a/c M/s. Rama Industries Jhajjar Road, Rewari.
Ref: Your letter dated 13-3-2001 Dear Sir, We have received your abovementioned letter in which demanded Rs. 17,70,000/-(Rs. Seventeen lacs and Seventy thousand) as a full and final settlement. In this regard, we submitted our proposal as under:
1. 25% of the settlement amount will be deposited upto 31-3-2001.
2. Balance amount will be paid within one year with interest upto 31-12-2001 @ 12% p.a.
3. All cases against us will be withdrawn within one month after full payment and consent decree of DRT Courts.
4. The title deed of residential house pledged against this account will be released at the time of full and final payment. Please confirm our proposal so that we may deposit the 25% amount after discussing with the other partner.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Partner.
Accepted as per OTS Scheme subject to consent decree from DRT Chandigarh and full payment as per OTS Scheme/DRT consent decree.
Sd/- Branch Manager 31-3-2001.
4. In pursuance of such acceptance, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 4,43,000/-on 31-3-2001. However, the petitioners have not deposited the balance amount committed by the petitioners in the above communication on or before the time fixed. Though it is the case of the petitioners that many communications were addressed for depositing the balance amount but the Bank has denied the receipt of any of such communication. The fact remains that the balance amount required in terms of one time settlement was not deposited by the petitioners within the time contemplated under the said scheme.
5. Initially, petitioner No. 1 Invoked the jurisdiction of this Court but subsequently petitioner No. 2, one of the partners, moved an application for impleading the said partner as petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 also sought amendment in the writ petition which was allowed. In the amended petition, it was pleaded that the petitioners have already paid the entire amount of Rs. 17.70 lacs under one time settlement scheme and that the principal amount availed by the petitioners was only Rs. 5 lacs. The entire subsisting claim of the respondents against the petitioners is on account of interest only. It may be noticed that on October 9, 2003, the writ petition was adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner so as to enable him to seek instructions as to whether the petitioner is willing to show his bona fide by depositing at least 50% of the balance amount in this Court. However, two bank drafts amounting to Rs. 13,27,000/-representlng 75% remaining amount under one time settlement scheme were handed over to the counsel for the bank only on 23-7-2004. The order passed by this Court on the said date reads as under:
Learned Counsel appearing for Rama Nand Sharma has handed over two bank drafts amounting to Rs. 13,27,000/- to the counsel appearing for the Bank towards being 75% remaining amount under OTS Scheme. According to him, he has already paid 25% and as such, he ought to be absolved towards the liability of the Bank. Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank without prejudice to the rights and contentions, has accepted the cheques and prays for time to seek instructions. List on 5-8-2004.
The Manager of the Bank is directed to be present in Court on next date of hearing.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India for one time settlement had been extended upto 30-7-2004 i.e, the date before which the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner was granted time to file requisite documents to show that one time settlement scheme has been extended. The petitioner has produced Annexure P-1/A dated 29-1-2003 and Annexure P-1/B dated 5-2-2004. A perusal of the said-documents show that fresh guidelines were issued by the Reserve Bank of India as progress of recovery of Non-performing Assets has been moderate in pursuance of the scheme dated 27-7-2000, therefore, in consultation with Government of India, it was decided to give one more opportunity to the borrowers to come forward for settlement of the outstanding dues. With this background, fresh guidelines were issued. The said guideliness were in modification of the guidelines set out in circular dated 27-7-2000. Vide circular dated 5-2-2004, the last date for processing of the applications was extended upto 31-10-2004.
7. It may be noticed that the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, has ordered auction of the property of petitioner No. 2 described as Plot No. 20, Industrial Estate, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, vide order dated 12-7-2005. It was ordered on 1-9-2005 by this Court that the auction proposed to be held on 3-9-2005 shall be subject to orders by this Court.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the revised guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 29-1-2003 are in continuation of earlier guidelines dated 27-7-2000. The petitioners have deposited the balance 75% amount on 23-7-2004. Therefore, the terms of one time settlement scheme stands fully complied with. Thus, it is not open to the Bank to put the property of the petitioner No. 2 to sale. It was argued that the guidelines issued by the Bank are non-discretionary and non-discriminatory for settlement and, therefore, the petitioners having deposited the amount in terms of the said scheme, the bank has no jurisdiction to auction the property of the petitioners.
9. On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioners had entered into one time settlement in the year 2001. The amount was to be deposited in terms of such settlement upto 31-3-2002. The petitioners failed to deposit the amount settled before the date fixed and, therefore, the concessions extended to the petitioners are no longer available. Therefore, the bank is entitled to recover the amount as per recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It has been pointed out that a sum of Rs. 2.3 crores with interest calculated upto 2-9-2005 is outstanding against the petitioner.
10. The petitioners have not made payment in terms of one time settlement, the acceptance of which was communicated to the petitioners on 30-3-2001. The deposit of balance 75% is much after the time stipulated for such settlement. The said amount has been deposited after filing of the present writ petition. It will not confer any enforceable right in favour of the petitioners seeking direction to the Bank to accept such deposit. However, it is open to the petitioners to seek settlement of its outstanding dues from the Bank in terms of the guidelines which may be in force or be issued by the Reserve Bank of India in future.
11. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case discussed above, we do not find that the conduct of the bank is either unfair or unreasonable which may warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
12. Dismissed with no orders as to costs.