MAKARWA FOODS PVT. LTD. vs SMALL INDUSTRIES BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

The petitioner is a Company, which is engaged in food processing and has its unit at Central Hope Town, Selaqui Industrial Area, Selaqui,

Dehradun.

The case of the petitioner is that under a Scheme of the Government of India dated 20.04.2007, a grant-in-aid/subsidy was to be given to a new

food processing Unit all over the country by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, for which there were certain designated Banks which have to

scrutinize the application regarding loan as well as for the subsidy. One of the designated Banks under the Scheme was respondent No.1 i.e. Small

Industries Bank of India.Â

The petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 on 23.03.2012. There is nothing to show on record that on the day when the

petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.1, the scheme as is being relied upon by the petitioner was in existence.Â

All the same, the case of the petitioner is that although there was a Scheme and under the Scheme, the petitioner was liable to be given Rs.75,

00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only) as subsidy but it has never been given to the petitioner. Â

By now, the admitted facts of the present case are that the account of the petitioner was declared as Nonperforming Asset (in short “NPAâ€)

and subsequently proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were

initiated against the petitioner, which the petitioner had challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition being WPMS No.1936 of 2017, which was

disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2017 on ground that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Against this

order, the petitioner filed a special appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, where a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2017 had

disposed of the special appeal. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

 “If the appellant pays a sum of ` 40 Lakhs on or before 15.11.2017 and pays the balance amount remaining from ` 87, 92,389/- with interest on

or before 15.12.2017, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act will not be carried forward. In case the appellant does not pay either of the

installments, the appellant will forfeit the benefit of this judgment and it will be open to the respondent Bank to proceed with the steps taken under the

SARFAESI Act. In case, the amounts are paid, as regards the amount of ` 75 Lakhs, this will be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition (M/S)

No. 1582 of 2016. If the entire amount is paid as aforesaid and if the appellant furnishes security for the sum remaining outstanding, which is the

subject matter of Writ Petition (M/S) No.1582 of 2016, the possession of the property will be restored back to the appellant.â€​Â

This Court has been informed that the petitioner has also filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court where relief has been granted to the

petitioner as to the period in which the payment has to be made. Â

The case of the petitioner is that had the subsidy been given to the petitioner, his account could not have been declared as “NPAâ€. However,

there is nothing to show on record that when the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 i.e. Small Industries Bank of India

and that such a Scheme was already existing, and therefore, it was bounded duty of respondent no. 1/bank to have sent the information to respondent

no. 2 so that subsidy could be released.Â

The case of both the respondent-bank as well as Ministry of Food Processing Industries before this Court is that the petitioner had never applied for

subsidy and in fact, he was not eligible for the subsidy. Â

Considering all these facts and the fact that the petitioner has not able to show that on the day when he entered into an agreement with respondent

no. 1 such a Scheme was in force, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter.Â

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.