MOHINDER PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Punjab and Sind Bank and Reserve Bank of India respectively, to consider the case of the petitioners under revised Guidelines dated 29.1.2003 for compromise settlement of chronic Non- Performing Assets (for short, 'NDAs') of public sector banks.

(2.) The petitioners have tried to set out long pending disputes and litigations between the parties as a back ground to filing of the present petition. It is really not necessary to go into detail of the same and it would suffice to say that petitioner No. 1 had handed over title deeds of various properties on 1.3.1975 to respondent No. 2 bank to secure the loan facilitfes. There is dispute, to the extent of what the petitioner claims as non-denial of requisite facilities. There is, however, no dispute that a sunn of Rs. 5 lakhs was appropriated by respondent No. 2 bank as margin money for the bank guarantee of Rs, 19.25 lakhs issued by the said bank In favour of the State of Rajasthan. Two of the properties were also transferred to third parties between 1975 and 1978 with which the petitioners claim that they are aggrieved though it is not disputed that no legal proceedings were initiated against the transfer of those properties by respondent No, 2 bank.

(3.) There were certain disputes; which arose in the year 1980 between the petitioners and the State of Rajasthan and Suit No, 481 of 1980 was filed to restrain encashment of the bank guarantee in which respondent No.2 Bank was also made a party. It is stated that in the year 1981, the parties also agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration. This aspect was, sought to be emphasized by learned Counsel for the petitioners to show that aIl the parties had agreed for arbitration, but at the outset, it may be stated that this piea cannot be accepted by reason of the nature of the suit and impleadment of respondent No.2 bank only in the capacity of a bank, which had issued the bank guarantee. This is also apparent from the subsequent Order; dated 9.11.1982 wherein it was recorded that the disputes between the plaintiff and the State of Rajasthan have been referred for determination by arbitration and, thus, no further proceedings were called for in the suit. The petitioners however, filed proceedings under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the said Act) in August, 1983 even against respondent No. 2 being Suit No. 1062A of 1983 under Sections 8,9 . and 20 of the said Act, which is stated to be still pending.