S. SETHURAMAN Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Order dated 5.1.2007, passed in IA -345/2006 in SA No. 6/2006, passed by the DRT -II at Chennai, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) AS against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002, the appellant herein preferred an Appeal in SA No. 6/2006 before the DRT -II at Chennai, and the same is pending. That in the said application/appeal, the appellant had taken out an application in IA -345/2006, to direct the respondent Bank to issue a formal letter of acceptance and accept the balance payment as per the time -frame fixed by the Tribunal and to release the documents contending that at the time when the appellant sought for an interim stay of further proceedings, the DRT was pleased to order stay on 6.2.2006, on condition that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be deposited within 10 days and the balance amount of Rs. 5.5 lakh was to be paid within 15 days. The appellant paid Rs. 1.5 lakh to the respondent Bank on 11.2.2006, and subsequently had approached the respondent Bank for One Time Settlement (OTS) offer of Rs. 1.5 lakh by letter dated 20.3.2006, and he had also enclosed a Cheque for an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - to prove his bona fides. That in the said letter, it was stated that the Cheque for Rs. 25,000/ - could be encashed only if his offer for OTS as per his letter dated 20.3.2006, was acceptable to the Bank. The respondent Bank had encashed the cheque on 24.3.2006, and it has not issued a letter of acceptance of the OTS. As his letter for OTS was accepted, the appellant sought extension of time before the DRT for the payment of the balance of Rs. 5.25 lakh and also prayed that the amount to be kept in an interest bearing No -Lien account, and the DRT granted time till 22.5.2006, to make the payment and also to keep the amount in interest bearing No -Lien account, and the appellant had complied with the orders of the Tribunal. But the appellant has not received any communication from the Bank regarding the OTS even though the Bank has accepted his letter of offer dated 20.3.2006, and therefore, filed the application for suitable direction.

(3.) THE Tribunal had taken a view that the loan was granted in terms of the contract and grant of OTS or re -scheduling of the loan amount is really a modification of the contract, which can only be done by mutual consent of the parties vide Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court cannot alter the terms of the contract and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.