M/S Milan Exports & Others v. State Bank Of India & Another





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24137 of 2018 Decided on 01.10.2018 M/s Milan Exports, Ludhiana and others Petitioners

Versus

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ludhiana and another Respondents * * * CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :

Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent-bank to adjust the amount of
50 lakhs towards
1.50 crores to be paid as per the proposal (Annexure P-7) dated 14.08.2018 under the latest scheme of One Time Settlement (OTS). 2.

Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioners No.2 to 4 are partners. State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ludhiana and State Bank of India, Railway Station Road Branch, Ludhiana have been arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2, respectively, in the writ petition.

3.

The petitioners availed a cash credit facility of
2.50 crores from the respondent-bank. In order to secure the credit facility availed,


following properties were mortgaged:

1.

Property measuring 250 sq. yards residential land and building MC No. B-XIX-354-E, Dr. Hira Singh Road, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

2.

Property measuring 136.37 sq. yards bearing MC Unit No. B-XXV-G-5/946, Pritampura, Sardar Nagar, Sekhowal Ludhiana.

4.

The petitioners failed to maintain financial discipline and as a result recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act') were initiated. Notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and thereafter notice dated 10.02.2015 under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued. The respondent-bank filed an application on 11.05.2015 under Section 14 of the Act before Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.07.2016. Police help was ordered to be provided for taking over physical possession of the mortgaged properties.

5.

On 11.09.2017, the bank offered to the petitioners to settle their account under OTS. The outstanding amount of
2,50,51,781/- was to be settled for
1,71,00,929/-. To avail the OTS, the petitioners were required to deposit 5% of the OTS amount for processing of application and 20% of the OTS amount as upfront money within 30 days from the date of sanction of OTS. Balance amount was to be repaid in six months together with interest. The OTS lapsed on 31.10.2017.


6.

The petitioners filed CWP No.4944 of 2018. On 28.02.2018, it was contended before this Court that at the time of offer of OTS, the petitioners were not in a position to deposit the requisite amount, but they have now arranged
50 lakhs and would pay the balance amount within a period of two months. The writ petition was adjourned so as to enbale the petitioners to bring a demand draft of
50 lakhs and to file an affidavit that remaining amount will be deposited within two months. Till the next date of hearing, it was ordered that physical possession of the mortgaged property shall not be taken.

7.

On next date i.e. 06.03.2018, the petitioners produced a demand draft of
50 lakhs and also filed an affidavit of undertaking regarding payment of balance amount upto 30.04.2018. Notice of motion was issued, the petitioners were directed to deposit demand draft of
50 lakhs with the respondent-bank without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties. The petitioners deposited the demand draft with the bank.

8.

The respondent-bank rejected the offer of OTS vide letter dated 02.05.2018. On 16.08.2018, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition as in the meantime, respondent-bank had floated a new OTS and had made offer to the petitioners under the said scheme. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was granted to the petitioners that in case any grievance survives after submission of the proposal, it shall be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies in accordance with law.

9.

In the present writ petition, learned counsel for the


petitioners submitted that the bank be directed to adjust amount of
50 lakhs deposited during pendency of earlier petition against the payment to be made under OTS to settle the account for
1.50 crores. 10.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank resisted the contention and submitted that the bank has given the credit of
50 lakhs against the NPA amount and has not adjusted the said amount against the interest due. He argued that
50 lakhs deposited could not be considered against the OTS offer of
1.50 crores.

11.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves rejection.

12.

Earlier the OTS offer was made by the respondent-bank on 09.09.2017. The scheme lapsed on 31.10.2017. The petitioners made an offer of OTS to the respondent-bank for an amount of
1,71,00,929/-. The said offer was rejected by the respondent-bank considering same to be too low. After the withdrawal of CWP No.4944 of 2018, the bank acting very fairly adjusted
50 lakhs against the NPA amount and not against the interest due. After giving credit of the said amount the respondent-bank has now offered to settle the outstanding dues of
2,50,51,781/- for
1,50,38,836/-. 13.

The endeavour of the petitioners is to have double credit of the amount of
50 lakhs deposited during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. The bank has offered OTS for
1,50,38,836/- after considering the deposit of
50 lakhs. The petitioners want to have benefit of settling the account of amount of
2,50,51,781/- for
1,50,38,836 by actually paying
1 crore only. If the prayer of the


petitioners is accepted, it would tentamount to give benefit of
50 lakhs twice i.e. firstly while calculating the amount for settlement and secondly while making the payment for the settled amount. 14.

The writ petition has no merit, the same is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE October 01, 2018 pankaj baweja Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No