EMJAY BUILDERS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

(2.) FIRST petitioner is a partnership firm and petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are its partners. It appears that the first petitioner firm and its sister concerns had availed of five loans in addition to two loans availed of by the petitioners 3 and 4. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the controversy is in relation to a commercial loan availed of by the firm bearing No.4313.771.23. Originally, the loan granted was of Rs.3 crores. That was restructured by the bank and the limit was also enhanced. However, default was committed. As a result, the aforesaid account and another loan account bearing No.4313.771.12 were classified as NPA. The petitioners approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.229/2012 and in the meanwhile they closed the account bearing No.4313.771.12. They also applied for giving them the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to settle the liability in respect of loan No.4313.771.23. That finally resulted in Ext.P24 where the bank informed the petitioner that their request can be considered, provided they are willing to close all the transactions and also revise their offer.

(3.) INSOFAR as the requirement that the petitioners should settle all the accounts is concerned, as already seen, of the various accounts maintained by the petitioners and their sister concerns, only the two aforesaid loan accounts were classified as NPA and out of those two loan accounts, one has already been closed. Although, the bank insists on the closure of all the loan transactions, no guidelines or instructions have been produced or shown which enables the bank to consider OTS only if all transactions are closed. In other words nothing prevents the bank from considering the request of the petitioners to extent them the benefit of OTS in respect of loan No.4313.771.23.