Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Bank is having no authority under the law to adjust the funds deposited by the Petitioners on 'No Lien' basis. Though the Bank had assured the petitioners that the subject amount would be refunded after conclusion of the OTS, but it acted contrary to that assurance by adjusting the amount against the Loan Account of Petitioner's 3 & 4. In this manner, the Bank has misled and defrauded the Petitioners, which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that once the Bank has proceeded with a One Time Settlement and funds have been deposited under an assurance of a subsequent refund, it is precluded from adjusting such funds, particularly those held in a "No Lien" Account. Hence, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for a direction to the Bank to refund the amount of Rs.50 lakhs each to Petitioners 1 & 2, along with interest.

9. The present case does not involve a claim for credit against regular loan repayments or installments. Rather, the Petitioners' grievance is with regard to specific deposit of a 'No Lien' amount. According to them, the action of the Respondent-Bank in refusing to refund Rs.1 Crore to Petitioners 1 & 2 is illegal and without any basis, as these funds were never intended for debt adjustment.

10.Indisputably, the Petitioners are indebted for a substantial outstanding loan amount, against which, a very meagre amount has been paid by them. While the Petitioners argue that 'No Lien' nature of this particular deposit impedes the Bank from appropriation, the Bank contends that no scheme permit return of such funds while the debt remains unpaid. The Petitioners are under a subsisting legal obligation to repay the entire amount of loan sanctioned to them. Furthermore, the Respondent-Bank's contention is that the adjustment of Rs.1 Crore was attributable to the Petitioners' failure to fulfill the terms and conditions of the OTS. In my view, the Respondent- Bank acted within its rights to adjust the deposited amount towards the recovery of the outstanding loan on account of the Petitioners' default in complying with the agreed-upon payment schedule. This action cannot be faulted in light of the contractual breach by the Petitioners.