RISHIKA COTTONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner - Company is the borrower. 2nd respondent - Bank vide letter in SAMB-II/HYD/ESN/815-B dated 19.10.2020 extended the One Time Settlement scheme to the account No./CIF No.72185231022 of the petitioner. As per the case of the 2nd respondent - Bank, as the petitioner failed to pay the upfront amount within time, the OTS scheme stood closed, and the benefit under the scheme, cannot be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the same, and seeks for a direction in this writ petition to implement the OTS scheme.

(2.) The material on record would disclose that the petitioner/borrower, which is a company, represented by its Managing Director, availed credit facility from the 2nd respondent - Bank, after executing necessary security documents, and the guarantors secured the loan by creating equitable mortgage of their properties. As the petitioner failed in making repayment of the loan amount, its account was declared as NPA on 27.02.2017, and the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short '\the SARFAESI Act') for recovery of the loan amount, and eventually the property was auctioned on 23.12.2019, and the 3rd respondent herein was the highest bidder. The said auction purchaser paid 25% of the sale consideration, and in respect of balance amount of 75%, he filed W.P.No.6400/2020, and this court vide order dated 8.10.2020 disposed of the said writ petition granting eight weeks time for payment of the balance amount, but however, the 3rd respondent/auction purchaser, failed to pay the amount within the time allowed by this court.

(3.) Though the petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent - Bank in not implementing OTS scheme, inter alia, sought to dispute the procedure adopted by the Bank in auctioning the properties. It is also sought to be contended that in W.P.No.6400/2020, it was not made a party, and by playing fraud, and contrary to Rule 9 (4) and (5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the auction purchaser could gain time for payment of the balance amount, and the same is not sustainable.