G S ATWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the legality and propriety of a letter, dated 10.1.2006, issued by the Punjab and Sindh Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh, respondent No.3 herein, informing the petitioner that its proposal for one-time settlement of accounts at Yamunanagar and Asansol, in terms of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 3.9.2005, cannot be accepted. The reasons for rejection of the proposal are stated to be :(i) the guide-lines having been formulated for NPAs up to 10 crores in Small and Medium Enterprises sector, petitioner's case does not fall in that category; (ii) decreed cases are not covered under the guide-lines and (iii) petitioner is a wilful defaulter.

(2.) Briefly stated, the material facts, as emerging from the petition, are as under: The petitioner-firm, along with its sister concerns, availed of various kinds of facilities from respondent No.3-Bank in the form of Deferred Payment Guarantee, overdraft limits and term loans, under three loan accounts. The petitioner having failed to adhere to the repayment schedule of credit facilities, vide notice dated 14.2.1999, the bank called upon the petitioner and the guarantors to pay the loan amounts due from them. On petitioner's failure to do so, an original application was filed by the bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal'). On 8.12.2000, the Tribunal passed an order against the petitioner and other defaulters directing recovery of Rs.14,67,06,333/- along with future interest etc. Another original application was filed against petitioner's sister concern before the Tribunal, which also resulted in a final order dated 30.4.2002 for recovery of Rs.6,09,25,756.41 p. along with interest etc. Similarly, on account of default in repayment in the third loan account, opened in the name of the petitioner in the Asansol branch of the bank, yet another original application was filed in the Tribunal, Calcutta Branch, for recovery of over Rs.4 crores, which is stated to be still pending.

(3.) According to the petitioner, during the pendency of this application, they approached the bank for settling all the loan accounts. Responding to the said offer by the petitioner and its sister concerns, vide its letter dated 16.5.2001, the bank asked the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.571.10 lacs within one year, which time was extended by another one year. The entire amount, including interest, was to be paid by 31.3.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner and its sister concerns again failed to adhere to the payment schedule. Consequently, the recovery proceedings were revived against the petitioner. Fearing action against it, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, seeking stay/quashing of execution proceedings. The writ petition was, however, withdrawn with liberty to approach the bank again for settlement as per the guide-lines dated 3.9.2005. Pursuant thereto, a representation was made by the petitioner on 30.11.2005, which has now been rejected by the impugned order.