Quashed

Tijaria Polypipes Limited v. Bank of India

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2025CW/11861/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the NCLT could not force the Bank to accept a One Time Settlement proposal or reserve the matter if rejected. The impugned NCLT order was quashed, and the Bank was directed to take a final call on the petitioner's proposal within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned NCLT order dated 23.07.2025 quashed and set aside. Respondent-Bank directed to take final call on OTS proposal within two weeks.

Tijaria Polypipes Limited Vs Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11861/2025

¶3

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Sp-12316, RICCO Industrial Area, Ramchandrapura, Sitapura Extension, Jaipur-302002 (Rajasthan).through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Vikas Jain Tijara S/o Shri Ramesh Jain Tijara Aged 53 Years.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bank Of India, Laxmi Complex Building, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001 Through Its Branch Manager Email [email protected] Having Its Head Office At Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051, Through Its Managing Director And Chief Executive Office.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Vikas Balia-Sr. Advocate with Mr. Archit Bohra-AGC Ms. Lipi Garg Ms. Anjali Sharma Mr. Prakhar Jain
		Mr. Rahul Verma Mr. Devang Saini Ms. Neha Bansal
		Ms. Sweekriti Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. A.K.Sharma-Sr. Advocate Mr. AjayShukla

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

11/08/2025

¶12

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the NCLT') by which a direction has been issued to the finance company to take the final call within a period of fifteen days on the OTS proposal submitted

¶13

(2 of 5) [CW-11861/2025]

¶14

by the petitioner and inform the NCLT about the said decision. It has also been observed by the NCLT that if the OTS proposal is not accepted, the matter be treated as reserved for orders.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the OTS offer submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3278/2025 which is still pending for its adjudication on its merit and till date, no final decision has been taken. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order dated 05.05.2025, this Court directed the respondent-Bank to consider the One Time Settlement proposal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and a condition was put upon the petitioner to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 7 Crore with the respondent- Bank within a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the Special Appeal bearing No. 652/2025 was submitted by the petitioner before the Division Bench wherein the interim order was passed on 05.06.2025 and the direction issued by this Court dated 05.05.2025 qua the deposit of Rs. 7 Crore was stayed till further orders but the respondent-Bank was also directed to consider the proposal of OTS strictly in accordance with the order dated 05.05.2025 and the circular dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The respondent-Bank was further directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner as the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 12 Crores and the same shall be considered as deposit against the OTS. Counsel further submits that a further direction was issued to the respondent-Bank that the matter be brought into the notice of Head Office of the Bank. Counsel submits that till date, OTS has not been decided by the

¶16

[CW-11861/2025]

¶17

(3 of 5)

¶18

respondent-Bank and in the meantime, the NCLT has passed the order impugned on 23.07.2025 directing the respondent-Bank to decide the OTS proposal on 13.08.2025 and if the OTS is not accepted, the matter is to be treated as reserved for orders. Counsel submits that the NCLT cannot force the petitioner to accept the OTS proposal, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶19

Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Bank opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that crores of rupees of the respondent- Bank are due which have not been deposited by the petitioner. Counsel submits that on earlier occasions also, the OTS offer given by the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected. Counsel submits that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings pending before the NCLT and every time, the OTS proposal is slightly increased by the petitioner but the petitioner is not interested in settling the account. Counsel submits that considering the various orders passed by this Court on several occasions now the matter has been sent to the Head Office for taking a final call on the OTS proposal and the same would be passed in due course of time and a final call will be taken soon. Counsel submits that the NCLT has not committed an error in passing the order dated 23.07.2025 by directing the petitioner that in case the OTS proposal is not accepted, the matter would be reserved for orders.

¶20

Lastly, he argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Indian Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the IBC') but without availing the statutory remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached

¶21

[CW-11861/2025]

¶22

(4 of 5)

¶23

this Court by passing the jurisdiction of the said authority, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and on this count alone, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶24

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that on earlier occasion when the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No. 3278/2025, the same was disposed of vide order dated order dated 05.05.2025 and the matter was remitted to the respondent with a clear and specific direction that the matter be placed before the authority which is one level higher in hierarchy than the authorities vested with the power of sanctioning the credit/investment exposure and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a one time proposal for settlement of the dispute along with Demand Draft of Rs. 7 Crore within the stipulated time.

¶25

It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.05.2025, the petitioner approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 652/2025 and while admitting the aforesaid petition, the Division Bench vide order dated 05.06.2025 has stayed the order dated 05.05.2025 qua deposit of Rs. 7 Crores and a direction was further issued to the respondent-Bank to consider the OTS strictly in accordance with the order dated 05.05.2025 and the circular dated 08.06.2023 issued by the RBI and a further direction was issued to the respondent-Bank not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. It appears that till date, the OTS proposal has not been decided by the respondent-Bank and in the meantime, the NCLT

¶26

[CW-11861/2025]

¶27

(5 of 5)

¶28

has passed the order impugned by directing the respondent-Bank to take final call within a period of fifteen days on the OTS proposal having been submitted by the petitioner and if the OTS is not accepted, the matter is to be treated as reserved for orders. This Court feels that the direction issued by the NCLT by forcing the petitioner to accept the OTS proposal given by the respondent-Bank otherwise the matter would be treated as reserved is not legally sustainable. In the opinion of this Court if at all the petitioner feels aggrieved by the OTS proposal, he would be at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under the law against the decision taken by the respondent-Bank. The NCLT cannot reserve the matter for orders in case the OTS is not accepted by the petitioner. The NCLT is supposed to hear and decide the pending proceedings strictly in accordance with law after hearing both sides.

¶29

In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the NCLT dated 23.07.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Bank is directed to take a final call on the OTS proposal submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks. The NCLT would be at liberty to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Ashu/139

Tijaria Polypipes Limited v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tijaria Polypipes Limited v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasmeet Singh Son of Shri Surendra Singh Vs the Station House Officer

Ankur Mathur Son of Late Shri Kamal Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Rajdeep Biotech Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Dinesh Kumar S/O Shri Tarachand Vs State of Rajasthan

Chand Kanwar W/O Shri Pratap Singh Rathore Vs M/S Fitness One

M/S Suresh Bhutani and Company Vs M/S Rajasthan Highway Services