CANARA BANK Vs. LUTHRA INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. Appl. No. 10598/2017 (for exemption)

(2.) Admittedly, the appellant/bank received a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- in terms of the OTS offer given by the judgment debtors. This OTS offer to the appellant/bank was accompanied by an amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- and which was deposited with the appellant/bank/decree holder. Though, the case of the appellant/bank is that the said OTS offer was rejected vide letter of the Head Office dated 28.7.2016 sent to the concerned branch at the New Delhi address, and which was further communicated by the appellant/bank to the judgment debtors vide its letter dated 5.11.2016, however, it is seen that if the OTS offer was rejected by the appellant/bank, then the appellant/bank also had to straightaway refund or at least offer to return/refund the amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- which was deposited with the appellant/bank by the judgment debtors. Admittedly, there is no communication of the appellant/bank to the judgment debtors that the amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- deposited as OTS now stands released or that amount be taken back by the judgment debtors. Once that is so, the appellant/bank cannot have its cake and eat it too i.e the appellant/bank cannot reject the OTS offer and yet retain the OTS amount. In any case, retaining of the amount without returning the same or offering to return the same will amount to settlement because for settlement not to have become final, the amount should have been returned or offered to be returned to the judgment debtors, and which is not the case.

(3.) I would also like to note that the letter of the appellant/bank dated 5.11.2016 relied upon by counsel for the appellant/bank does not state that the OTS offer of the judgment debtors is rejected and this letter only states that the judgment debtors must improve the offer as regards the OTS.