SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the defendant-bank, inter alia, praying for rejection of plaint and consequential dismissal of the suit.

(2.) Prayers from the master summons are quoted below :

(3.) The plaint is annexed to the supporting affidavit at page 32 thereto. The summary of the plaint case is that from time to time the plaintiff has availed of advances and financial facilities/loans from the defendant-bank. The plaintiff defaulted. The account of the plaintiff was declared as Non Performing Asset (in short NPA). On October 13, 2017 the defendant-bank had served a notice under sub-Sec. (2) to Sec. 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act). On December 14, 2018 the defendant-bank has served notice in respect of the security interests under sub-Sec. (4) to Sec. 13 of the Securitization Act. Plaintiff has not challenged such actions taken by the bank under Securitization Act. On March 5, 2019 the bank has filed an application under Sec. 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short Debts Recovery Act), which has been registered before the jurisdictional DRT as OA 183 of 2019. In 2020 the bank has initiated proceeding under Sec. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC). At this juncture, a one-time settlement proposal (for short OTS) was submitted by the plaintiff. As the OTS proposal was submitted and was not considered by the bank, the said proceeding under Sec. 7 of IBC which was initiated in 2020 was withdrawn. The said first OTS proposal had failed as the bank did not agree. In or about March 2024, the bank has initiated the second proceeding under Sec. 7 of IBC, the same is still pending before NCLT. On December 27, 2024 at page 141 to the supporting affidavit, the plaintiff has submitted its second OTS proposal. By a letter dated January 21, 2025 at page 148 to the supporting affidavit the bank has allegedly rejected the said second OTS proposal. Further plaint case is that, from time to time under the said first OTS proposal, though not fructified, plaintiff has made substantial payment. Similarly, under the said second OTS proposal from time to time negotiations took place and the plaintiff has made substantial payment to the bank, which was accepted by the bank. As per asking of the bank the plaintiff has also enhanced its offer and made further payment under the second OTS proposal. Further negotiation took place by and between the plaintiff and the bank, as would be evident from plaintiff's letter dated February 5, 2025 at page 151 to the supporting affidavit and the bank had rejected the OTS proposal by its letter dated February 13, 2025 at page 153 to the supporting affidavit.