INDERJIT POULTRY FARM Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 27.7.2002. The petitioners further pray for a direction to the respondents to accept the money from the petitioners in NPAs account according to the revised guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners on 1.10.2002, this Court issued notice of motion to the respondents for 2.12.2002. In the meantime, operation of the order dated 31.7.2002 for attachment of the property of the petitioner was stayed on the condition of deposit of a sum Rs. 50 lacs within one month.

(2.) THE petitioners had taken a business loan from respondent Nos. 1 and 2- State Bank of Patiala. Due to non-payment of the instalments, the respondents-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,37,530/- before the civil court at Jagadhri on 11.1.1995. The suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. By order dated 8.12.1998, the Debt Recovery Tribunal decreed the claim of the respondents-Bank for a sum of Rs. 9,71,297/- together with future interest till the amount is realised. The petitioners made a claim to repay the loan under the revised guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 27.7.2002. This request was not accepted by the respondents-Bank. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai which was ultimately transferred to the Appellate Tribunal at Delhi. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Appellate Tribunal and stated that the case of the petitioners is not covered under the RBI guidelines. The respondents-Bank further stated that the petitioners can approach the respondents-Bank under the general scheme of compromise. On 30.3.2001, the Appellate Tribunal disposed of the application filed by the petitioners for direction to the respondents-Bank for settlement as per RBI guidelines on or before 31.3.2001, with the observations that whatever the petitioners are saying in the application may be considered when the appeal is taken up on merits. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2001. On 25.2.2002, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the following orders :-

(3.) WRITTEN statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and a preliminary objection has been taken that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs as the petitioners have deliberately/intentionally concealed material facts from this Court regarding filing of the earlier Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2001 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.2.2002. The claims of the petitioners have also been contested on merits.