BOBBY JACOB MARKOSE Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enjoying credit facilities from Andhra Bank (the bank) in connection with the business carried on by him in the name of a proprietary concern and a partnership firm. The loan accounts of the petitioner became nonperforming assets in course of time. Proceedings have been consequently initiated by the bank against the securities under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act). Petitioner challenged the said proceedings before this Court in W.P. (C).No.20790/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Ext.P1 judgment permitting the petitioner to pay the outstanding in the loan accounts in instalments. Petitioner challenged Ext.P1 judgment in appeal. Ext.P2 is the judgment rendered in the said appeal. In terms of Ext.P2 judgment, Ext.P1 judgment was modified enlarging the time prescribed for payment. The petitioner has not discharged the liability in terms of the said judgments. The bank, therefore, continued the proceedings under the Act and obtained orders under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the securities. The petitioner then filed two applications under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Exts.P7 and P8 are the interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the said applications. In terms of Ext.P7 interim order, the petitioner was granted the stay sought for by him in the proceedings, on condition that he shall deposit Rs.25, 00, 000/-, and in terms of Ext.P8 order, the petitioner was granted the stay sought for by him on condition that he shall pay a sum of Rs.50, 00, 000/-. The liability of the petitioner, as of now, is more than Rs.7 crores. The petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed in terms of Exts.P7 and P8 interim orders passed by the Tribunal. It is stated that he has challenged Exts.P7 and P8 orders before the Appellate Tribunal under the Act and the matters are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Exts.P9 and P10 are the appeals preferred by the petitioner challenging Exts.P7 and P8 interim orders. The petitioner is yet to obtain any interim order in the said appeals. After having preferred the said appeals, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent bank to consider the case of the petitioner for One Time Settlement. The petitioner also seeks directions to the bank to refrain from continuing the proceedings under the Act against the securities until a decision is taken on their right to settle the liability on one time basis.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the bank.

(3.) As noted above, the petitioner has not settled the liability as permitted by this Court in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments. The relief now sought in the writ petition is a relief which might, and ought to have been asked by the petitioner in the earlier writ petitions preferred by him. Further, as noted above, the petitioner later approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the proceedings and obtained conditional interim orders. He has also not complied with the conditions in terms of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel for the bank submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner is yet to prefer an application for One Time Settlement before the bank. In the said circumstances, I have no doubt that this writ petition is one instituted without any bonafides to prolong the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed.