SURESH CHHAJURAM SINGAL Vs. BANK OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhadresh S. Raju for and on behalf of Mr.Dhanesh R. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar, learned Advocate for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr.Amar N.Bhatt, Learned Advocate for and on behalf of the respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following prayers:- (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned action of respondent No.1-Bank in declaring the petitioners accounts as fraud and reporting it to respondent No.2 as fraud account as being illegal, arbitrary, suffering from vices of malafides, in breach of principles of natural justice and also violative of Artc.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

(3.) It would appear that the petitioners were Directors in three companies namely (1) M/s. Micro Polyester Pvt. Ltd. (2) M/s. Prime Polyweave Ltd. and (3) M/s. Good Luck Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and whereas, the said companies had availed financial facility from the respondent No.1- Bank in the early 2000 and whereas, it would also appear that the respondent-bank had also later on increased the sanctioned limit to the companies. It appears that somewhere in the financial year 2004-05, the companies according to the petitioners had suffered huge financial loss and resultantly, all the accounts of the Companies were declared Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 30/9/2005. It also appears that the companies had also disputes with other banks from whom, they had obtained the financial facilities. It appears that as far as the present respondent no.1 bank is concerned, the petitioners, had submitted a proposal for OTS for all the three companies and whereas, vide a communication dtd. 17/12/2008 issued by the the Managing Committee of Board of Directors, the same was accepted and whereas,the full and final settlement had been arrived at somewhere in the year 2008-2010. It would also appears that in the interregnum, the respondent Bank has also initiated the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad by filing Original Application Nos. 3 of 2007; 4 of 2007 and 104 of 2008 against the companies respectively. It would appear that while the petitioners had settled with the respondent No.1-Bank and the matter had stood as such in the interregnum, the Central Bureau of Investigation (referred to hereinafter "the CBI") had registered a suo moto FIR against the petitioners as well as some of the officers of the respondent No.1-Bank and whereas, it would appear that as of now, vide an order dtd. 25/8/2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court had stayed all the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 2 of 2010 arising from the FIR registered by the CBI referred to hereinabove.