MOHANLAL PATIDAR Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order will dispose of W.P. Nos.22127/2021 and 22131/2021.

(2.) The facts are taken from W.P. No.22127/2021. The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner - a borrower, obtained a loan and intended to repay it in terms of One Time Settlement (OTS). During the correspondence made for this purpose between the petitioner and the Bank, the Bank issued the letter dtd. 9/3/2021 (Annexure A/1) to the petitioner. In this letter, the amount of OTS was quantified as Rs.36,50,000.00 by mentioning that it is "as per settlement formula given in the scheme". The petitioner, in furtherance thereof, deposited Rs.35,00,000.00 with the Bank.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by communications dtd. 25/8/2021 (Annexure P/4) and 22/9/2021 (Annexure P/13). By communication dtd. 25/8/2021, the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank informed the petitioner that the proposal of petitioner was put up before the competent authority which has sanctioned the compromise proposal of the petitioner on certain terms. The first term was that petitioner will be required to deposit Rs.50.50 lakhs as full and final settlement of the dues. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred representation dtd. 13/9/2021 (Annexure P/5) followed by communication through e-mail. The respondents, in turn, sent another letter dtd. 13/9/2021 and informed the petitioner that on 25/8/2021, the petitioner was informed about acceptance of the proposal. The Bank has neither received the petitioner's express acceptance nor denial of the petitioner. Thus, it was presumed that the petitioner has accepted the proposal and in turn, the petitioner was directed to deposit the remaining amount as per OTS sanction. This was followed by another letter of similar effect dtd. 17/9/2021 (Annexure P/7).