AMEYA CHEMICALS Vs. THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE present petition is filed under peculiar circumstances. It transpires that the petitioner had borrowed a loan from the respondent - Bank and defaulted in repayment. Therefore, the properties of the petitioner were brought to sale. In order to have a one -time settlement, the petitioner had brought a third party, namely one Anilkumar N. Gudmati, who had offered to partially settle the loan transaction pursuant to a one -time settlement agreement, whereby the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/ - as per Annexure -"D". The said Anilkumar N. Gudmati, had transferred a sum of Rs. 7,81,961/ - from his account to the loan account, in partial discharge of the loan. However, since the one -time settlement contemplated a total payment of Rs. 9,00,000/ -, it was not possible to issue a no -due certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is six months later that the petitioner had approached the Bank to make a further one -time settlement on payment of an additional sum of Rs. 55,000/ - on account of the delay in completing the one -time settlement and accordingly, had deposited the entire amount of Rs. 9,55,000/ - and the respondent however did not issue a 'no -due certificate', since the amount deposited by Gudmati in a sum of Rs. 7,81,961/ - remained in deposit and in order to avoid any claims by Gudmati and in the absence of an indemnity offered by the petitioner, the Bank was reluctant to issue a 'no -due certificate'. The petitioner in turn had claimed that there was no privity between Gudmati and itself and that the amount in deposit was made without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is in this background that there was an impasse and the Bank refused to issue a 'no -due certificate' unless the matter was settled as between Gudmati, the petitioner and the Bank.