Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The petitioners did not challenge the proceedings issued by the Banks declaring the accounts of petitioner No.4 Company as NPA and fraud accounts and, therefore, the said proceedings attained finality.

14. Petitioner No.4 has availed OTS facility offered by the Banks by submitting appropriate proposals. The said OTS proposals submitted by petitioner No.4 were accepted by the Banks and proceedings were issued informing petitioner No.4 about acceptance of the OTS. The amount to be paid and the time also specifically mentioned therein.

The settlement will not have any bearing whatsoever on the ongoing / future criminal cases / proceedings initiated / to be initiated by the bank and pending in the Courts against the borrower and that such compromise settlement will relate only to the recovery proceedings for dues outstanding. This should also form part of the consent terms to be filed with the Court / DRT."

19. It is relevant to mention that the 4th petitioner company has received the above said proceedings and sought revised OTS acceptance proposal in respect of one Bank, the same were issued and thereafter petitioner No.4 has paid amounts to the respective banks. Thus, the petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions of the respective banks while accepting the OTS proposals. They have not challenged / disputed any of the terms and conditions imposed by the KL,J banks. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot contend that the de facto complainants viz., the Central Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra, having accepted the OTS proposals, having received the entire amounts cannot pursue criminal proceedings and cannot file complaints against the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel to the said effect cannot be accepted.

25. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that, in the above said letters, both the banks have specifically mentioned that acceptance of OTS proposals by the banks will not absolve the criminal liability of the petitioners. According to the banks, Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate, out of fear of facing punishment stipulated under the provisions of law, the petitioners have approached the banks with OTS proposals. The source of funds used by the petitioners for completing the OTS is also suspect and it is part of Enforcement Directorate's fund trial investigation. Petitioner No.4 has defaulted the credit facilities availed from 5 banks and caused huge losses to the banks despite the OTS and the details of the same are mentioned in the tabular form mentioned supra.

29. In view of the said principle, it is also relevant to point out that in the present case, the complainants' bank have specifically incorporated in the acceptance of OTS proposals terms and conditions that the acceptance of OTS will not absolve the criminal liability of the petitioners and OTS and criminal liability are different and distinct.

30. In Hari Singh Ranka8, the Apex Court considered the affect of OTS and held that the OTS merely deals with the civil liability that too by making of payment of Rs.25.00 Crores whereas outstanding liability was Rs.44.00 Crores though it was submitted loss caused was approximately Rs.13.00 Crores. The amount which has been settled in OTS scheme cannot be legally sufficient to wipe out the criminal liability of the accused persons. The OTS could wipe off only the civil liability, but not the criminal one.