NAVEEN ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K. K. Batra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The material facts, which are not in dispute, may, in a narrow compass, be set as follows : The petitioner No. 1, which is a limited company registered under the Companies Act with the petitioner No. 2, as one of its shareholders, availed credit facilities from the respondent No. 3, namely, Union Bank otf India (in short 'the UBI') for construction of a project known as "Hotel Kuber". On failure of the petitioner No. 1 to keep its commitment to the UBI, the account of the petitioner No. 1 became'Non Performing Asset' (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA') as far back as in the year 1991. The UBI, thereafter, initiated a recovery proceeding, which was registered as OA 135/ 97, in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short 'the DRT), Guwahati. The petitioners, as defendants, participated in the said proceeding, which was eventually disposed of by judgment and order, dated 20.06.2002, whereby the learned Tribunal held the UBI entitled to recover the amounts claimed by them with interest and the cost holding the defendants-petitioners herein jointly and severally liable for making payment of the same. A certificate was accordingly issued in favour of the UBI for recovery of Rs. 81,88,778.57 with interest @ 12.5% from the date of institution of the suit till realization thereof. On 29.01.2003, the Reserve Bank of India (in short, 'the RBI') issued some guidelines for compromise/settlement of the NPA of public sector banks. On 24.03.2003, the petitioner No. 1 wrote a letter to the respondent No. 4, namely, General Manager, Union Bank of India, Eastern Region, Kolkata, expressing its willingness to compromise its outstanding balance in terms of the RBI's said guidelines. As the UBI did not accede to the request made by the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court, with the help of their present writ petition, seeking issuance of appropriate writ (s) commending the UBI to settle their claims against the petitioners by taking resort to the said guidelines, dated 29.01.2003, aforementioned.

(3.) Presenting the case on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, has submitted that the guidelines, dated 29.01.2003, aforementioned clearly show that these guidelines apply to the cases, which are pending in the DRT. It has also been submitted by Mr. K. N. Choudhury that since the certificate of recovery issued by the learned Tribunal is, now, pending for execution/recovery with the respondent No. 5, namely, Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, and since the guidelines issued by the RBI are binding on all the public sector bank, such as, the UBI, these guidelines ought to have been resorted to by the UBI, for, the guidelines squarely apply to the facts of the present case.