OINAM SOMORENDRO MEETEI Vs. MAYENGBAM TEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned two main 'Writ Appeals' ('WAs' in plural and 'WA' in singular for the sake of brevity) are directed against the same order. The order that has been assailed in both WAs is an order dtd. 9/10/2018 made by a Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 227 of 2018 and this order shall be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity. Subject matter of caption WAs pertain to a 'One Time Settlement' ('OTS' for the sake of brevity) between a Nationalized Bank and a borrower and sale of the immovable property of borrower (given as security for loan) by the Bank in an auction to third-party auction purchasers. To be noted, this Court will dilate more on facts elsewhere infra in this common order which will govern the captioned two WAs and captioned 'Miscellaneous Case' ('MC' for the sake of brevity).

(2.) W.A. No. 52 of 2018 has been filed by the auction purchasers and WA No.61 of 2018 has been filed by the Nationalized Bank both assailing the impugned order (as already alluded to supra). As regards the captioned MC, the same has been taken out by the borrower, post impugned order but pending captioned WAs with a prayer to permit the borrower to deposit the OTS amount by way of a cheque (to be noted, a photocopy of the full OTS amount settlement cheque has been annexed to the MC).

(3.) Reverting to factual matrix and central theme of lis qua captioned WAs and MC, one 'Mayengbam Tej Singh, son of M. Shrilal Singh, Proprietor, M.S. and Sons' (hereinafter 'borrower' for the sake of convenience) sometime in 2012 availed cash credit facility to the tune of about Rs.45,000,00.00 (Rupees Forty Five lakhs) from 'the Central Bank of India, Imphal Branch, Manipur' (hereinafter 'said Bank' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that the account became 'NPA' ('Non-Performing Asset' for the sake of brevity); that the borrower filed a writ petition in W.P. (C) No.173 of 2017 regarding this account, i.e, NPA; that this 'writ petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) came to be disposed of by a Hon'ble Single Bench in and by a short order dtd. 24/4/2017 recording the stated positions of learned counsel for said Bank and learned counsel for borrower (borrower submitted that he would pay the outstanding amount in a timeframe of one month to which the Bank counsel agreed); that the one month time frame is from the date of receipt of a copy of the order which was on 3/5/2017 and this further means that the one month time frame elapsed on 3/6/2017; that thereafter said bank on 25/1/2018 came up with a OTS proposal making it clear that it is a special OTS scheme, borrower's account (NPA) is eligible under the special OTS scheme, a sum of Rs.41,25,000.00 (Rupees Forty One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand) should be deposited as 'full and final settlement' and that this offer is valid up to 31/3/2018; that according to said Bank, on 29/1/2018, it wrote a letter to the borrower altering the special OTS cut-off date, viz., advancing the cut-off date from 31/3/2018 to 10/2/2018 but there is serious dispute about this letter having been served on the borrower; that while the borrower contended that this letter was never received by him, said Bank contended that the Chief Manager of said Bank went over to the borrower's place, found the borrower somewhere near the 'place' (described as 'land') and attempted to give it to the borrower but the borrower refused to receive the same (there will be a little more elaboration on this elsewhere infra in this order) but suffice to write that this was the bone of contention and the crux and gravamen of the issue in the writ petition before the Hon'ble Single Judge; that on 21/2/2018, the borrower sent an e-mail to said Bank inter alia referring to the OTS offer and saying that said Bank has in the interregnum, inter alia resorted to taking possession of immovable property given as security on 16/2/2018, much before the 31/3/2018 cut-off but making it clear that the borrower is accepting the OTS offer and he is ready to settle as per the OTS offer made on 25/1/2018; that on the very next day, the Chief Manager of the said Bank had written a letter (obviously letter dtd. 22/2/2018) bearing Reference No. CBI/IMP/2017-18/00177 inter alia stating that the borrower has lost his right of redemption; that in this 22/2/2018 letter there is a reference to an earlier letter dtd. 25/1/2018 from the said Bank bearing letter No. IMP/SARFAESI/2017-18/1449A but that letter vide which said Bank claims that it intimated the borrower that said immovable property is being put up for auction and borrower has lost his right of redemption has not been placed before this Court (either before the Hon'ble Single Bench or before this Division Bench); that thereafter the borrower filed W.P. (C) No. 227 of 2018 on 22/3/2018 inter alia assailing (a) the 22/2/2018 communication cancelling the special OTS proposal and (b) a e-auction notice dtd. 16/2/2018; that this writ petition, after full contest came to be allowed by a Hon'ble Single Bench in and vide the impugned order; that in this W.P. (C) No.227 of 2018, said Bank represented by its Branch Manager and Chief Manager of said Bank were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively and the two auction purchasers were arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 and 4; that for completion of facts, it is deemed appropriate to write that details of the immovable property (which has been given as security by the borrower) is Dag No.1019, Patta No.59/342 (pt) (Old) 255 (New), situate in Imphal West District, Mauza Oinam Thingel Revenue Village No.59 admeasures an Area 0.0233 Hectare or thereabouts (to be noted, this description is as per the e-auction sale notice dtd. 16/2/2018 which was put to challenge in the writ petition); that contending that they are aggrieved by the impugned order, the auction purchasers have filed captioned W.A. No. 52 of 2018 and said Bank has filed captioned W.A. No.61 of 2018 as already alluded to supra; that for further completion of facts, it is deemed appropriate to write that inter alia by an order dtd. 17/1/2019 made by Hon'ble predecessor Bench, the impugned order of Hon'ble Single Bench has been stayed pending captioned Writ Appeals and that the same is now operating.