Writ petition filed challenging the interaction of respondents bank to sell mortgaged property and rice mill due to default under One Time Settlement Scheme. The Court dismissed the petition.
Writ petition failed, dismissed; consequential miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6428 of 2019
ORDER::
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare
the proposed action of the respondents to sell the mortgaged
house and the rice mill as being illegal, arbitrary and against
the right to hold the property and for issuance of appropriate
consequential directions, in the interest justice.
13-06-2007 on cash credit facility and utilized till 26-02-2013
within the permissible limits. Due to vagaries in business, the
petitioner sustained loses as there was irregular power supply
and could not run the rice mill. That as the loan repayment
became irregular, the respondent-bank initiated proceedings
under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.
bank evolved a One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) in the year
2018 and under the said scheme all non-performing assets
2
(NPAs) and AUCAs with outstanding of above Rs.20 lacs and
upto Rs.50 crores as on 30-03-2018 were given opportunity to
pay the amounts as per the terms and conditions mentioned
in the OTS scheme. That the outstanding amount as on 31-03-
2018 payable by the petitioner is stated to be
Rs.1,62,98,464/- inclusive of interest and under the OTS
scheme, the amount was settled to Rs.88,78,654/- after
deducting the amounts already paid. That the petitioner was
informed through letter dated 27-09-2018 that his loan
account is admitted to the OTS scheme and was required to
pay the amounts on or before 27-03-2019. That the petitioner
could pay only 15% of the amount on 25-10-2018 and
remaining amounts, he could not mobilise in liquid cash due
to assembly elections in the Telangana State followed by
Parliamentary elections and there was also an embargo on transactions beyond Rs.10 lacs during the election period.
and ready to pay the amounts due and payable as assessed
under the OTS scheme and seeks to extent the time, but the
respondent-bank refused the same. Hence, this writ petition.
3
that in view of the peculiar situation in which the petitioner was placed, he could not pay the balance amounts within the
in time fixed in the OTS scheme and in light of the compliance
of the order of this Court, pursuant to which the petitioner deposited another sum of Rs.10 lacs, the petitioner be permitted to pay the balance amount under the OTS scheme.
the beneficiaries have to comply the terms thereof. In support
of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in UNION BANK OF INDIA vs. PANCHANAN SUBUDHI (Civil Appeal No.1355 of 2009).
to deposit 5% of the OTS amount and the balance amount on
the further terms thereof. One of the silent feature of the
scheme is, it is non-discretionary and non-discriminatory.
When once a scheme is evolved and certain benefits are
attached to it, to avail the same, the beneficiaries have to stick
4
to the terms thereof. In PANCHANAN SUBUDHI’s case relied
on by the learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank it
was ruled that when once the beneficiary failed to abide by
the terms of the one time settlement, there was no justification
for interference.
if any, pending are also dismissed. There shall no order as to
costs.
___________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Dated: 17-07-2019
NRG
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6428 of 2019
//WEB//
Dated: 16-07-2019
NRG
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with the One Time Settlement Scheme terms when the borrower fails to comply.
Whether the Court can grant relief extending time to pay the balance amount under the OTS scheme.
Whether the writ petition for declaring the bank's proposed action illegal and arbitrary should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union Bank of India vs. Panchanan SubudhiRelied on¶48
UNION BANK OF INDIA vs. PANCHANAN SUBUDHI (Civil Appeal No.1355 of 2009)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
SBI Bank
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
N. R. GOVINDARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
