Ameya Chemicals vs The Bank of Maharashtra

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The present petition is filed under peculiar circumstances. It transpires that the petitioner had borrowed a loan from the respondent - Bank and defaulted in repayment. Therefore, the properties of the petitioner were brought to sale. In order to have a one-time settlement, the petitioner had brought a third party, namely one Anilkumar N. Gudmati, who had offered to partially settle the loan transaction pursuant to a one-time settlement agreement, whereby the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as per Annexure-"D". The said Anilkumar N. Gudmati, had transferred a sum of Rs. 7,81,961/- from his account to the loan account, in partial discharge of the loan. However, since the one-time settlement contemplated a total payment of Rs. 9,00,000/-, it was not possible to issue a no-due certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is six months later that the petitioner had approached the Bank to make a further one-time settlement on payment of an additional sum of Rs. 55,000/- on account of the delay in completing the one-time settlement and accordingly, had deposited the entire amount of Rs. 9,55,000/- and the respondent however did not issue a ''no-due certificate'', since the amount deposited by Gudmati in a sum of Rs. 7,81,961/- remained in deposit and in order to avoid any claims by Gudmati and in the absence of an indemnity offered by the petitioner, the Bank was reluctant to issue a ''no-due certificate''. The petitioner in turn had claimed that there was no privity between Gudmati and itself and that the amount in deposit was made without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is in this background that there was an impasse and the Bank refused to issue a ''no-due certificate'' unless the matter was settled as between Gudmati, the petitioner and the Bank.

Insofar as the initial deposit of Rs. 7,81,961/- is concerned, it is lying with the Bank as on date and fearing a possible claim for compensation and damage in respect of any settlement made with the petitioner without the intervention of Gudmati, the Bank has refused to issue a ''no-due certificate''.

The learned counsel for the respondent - Bank would further state that there have been repeated attempts on the part of the Bank to return the amount by issuing a Demand draft and sending it to the last known address of Gudmati and the same has been returned each time unserved to the said Gudmati and the learned counsel pleads helplessness in the absence of the Bank being absolved of any liability insofar as the initial deposit of the above said amount made by Gudmati. In this background, as admittedly there has been a full and final settlement in the Bank having received less for more permitting the petitioner to deposit Rs. 9,55,000/- in full and final settlement, it is appropriate that the petitioner should be issued a ''no-due certificate'' as claimed by him. Insofar as the amount deposited by Gudmati is concerned, since the Bank has sincerely made efforts to contact him, it is taken on record that the same has been returned unserved on the said Gudmati.

Refund of the amount by way of Demand Draft having been repeatedly returned to the Bank, the Bank is absolved of any obligation towards Gudmati and shall not be liable to the said Gudmati in respect of the amount in deposit if the said amount should be fixed deposit till such time Gudmati chooses to withdraw the same. With that observation, the petition is allowed. The respondent - Bank is directed to issue a ''no-due certificate'' to the petitioner, in view of the settlement made by the petitioner by paying a sum of Rs. 9,55,000/- as stated.