S CHOCKKALINGAM Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a defaulter in the payment of amount due to the Bank had come forward with this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner had committed default in the payment of amounts due to the Bank, the Bank had instituted suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and the same was subsequently transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in T.A.No.1370 of 2002. The petitioner had approached the Bank for One Time Settlement under OTS scheme and as per the same, he was permitted to remit a sum of Rs.1,05,98,428/- as against the outstanding of Rs.1,71,00,428.78p with condition to pay Rs.75 lakhs on or before 30.06.2006, the balance amount of Rs.30,98,428/- on or before 31.03.2007, 10.25% interest for payment of the compromise amount and in the event of default, entire dues with upto date interest will be payable to the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Though the petitioner agreed to pay, he could not pay the amount. He paid only Rs.10 lakhs on 30.06.2006 and he would also contend that inspite of the best efforts, he has neither paid nor sold the property. Therefore, he again made a representation on 14.11.2006 offering to pay a sum of Rs.65 lakhs and settle the balance on or before 31.07.2007, but the same was rejected by the respondent Bank and initiated further proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) and that was also challenged by the petitioner in O.A.(S) No.9 of 2007 in Securitisation Appeal. But in the mean while, the Bank issued possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the SARFAESI Rules 2002 and thereafter, the Bank also issued a paper publication inviting sale cum tender notification by fixing the same on 13.03.2007 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing stay application and the DRT has also granted an order directing to remit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 13.03.2007 and further sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on or before 27.03.2007 and adjourned the matter to 28.03.2007. The petitioner complied with the first part of the order viz., payment of Rs.20 lakhs on 13.03.2007, but failed to comply with the second part of the order and sought time extension for the same, which was also accepted by the Tribunal and granted two weeks time for second instalment of Rs.7 lakhs. However, the same was also not paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Bank to consider his request and his request for approving the OTS scheme was rejected by the third respondent. The petitioner has come forward with the writ petition seeking for a direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to revive OTS scheme dated 20.03.2006 literally seeking Bank to accept his terms of compromise.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent Bank brought to the notice of this court a judgment of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Pvt. Limited reported in 2004(5)CTC 689, wherein, a Division Bench has categorically stated that recovery of loans are contractual in nature and the writ petition is not proper remedy for borrower.