AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of notice dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 13(2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'the Act') and notice dated
08.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.
The petitioner is a proprietorship concern. Bank of Maharashtra, NIT Branch Faridabad, District Faridabad and District Magistrate, Faridabad have
been arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively in the present writ petition.
The petitioner in February, 2014 availed a cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.1,15,00,000/- and term loan of Rs.45 lakhs from the respondent-bank.
In order to secure the credit facility, the petitioner mortgaged property bearing Khewat/Khatoni No.608/904 Khasra/Rect No.27 Kila No.6(8-0), 15(8-
0), 16(8-0) Rect No.28 Kila No.10/2(3-9), 11(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8-0), 21/2(2-13), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), Rect No.33 Killa No.2 (7-9), 3(7-9), 8(8-0),
9(8-0), admeasuring 2 Kanal 1 Marla i.e. 1240 Sq.
Yards in the name of Mr. Sandeep Garg S/o Ram Kumar Garg, situated at Mauja Nangla Gurjan Tehsil & District Faridabad.
The petitioner failed to maintain the financial discipline and consequently accounts were classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.02.2016.
The respondent-bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 20.02.2017. As per the notice, there was outstanding amount of Rs.1,74,69,535/-
. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 08.06.2017. The petitioner was offered One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal vide
letter dated 19.01.2018. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2018. The petitioner failed to honour the
terms of OTS. Being aggrieved of the recovery proceedings, the present petition has been filed.
On 03.05.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a demand draft of Rs.25 lakhs and contended that the petitioner is willing to pay another
sum of Rs.15 lakhs within two weeks and thereafter to pay the balance amount along with penal interest. Notice of motion was issued subject to the
petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs.25 lakhs within two days followed by another payment of Rs.15 lakhs by 19.05.2018, status quo regarding secured
assets was ordered to be maintained.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.40 lakhs during the pendency of this writ petition and he
is willing to settle the outstanding dues with the bank. He restricted his prayer to the effect that the petitioner would approach the bank with a proposal
for settlement and the bank be directed to decide the same within a reasonable time.
Learned counsel for the respondent-bank argued that the petitioner was offered an OTS proposal but he failed to honour the same
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
The petitioner shall approach the respondent-bank with a proposal for settlement within 15 days from today. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of
Rs.10 lakhs alongwith the proposal.
The bank shall consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner sympathetically, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and by passing a speaking order.
The respondent-bank shall decide the representation at the earliest but not later than one month from the receipt of proposal.
The interim protection granted vide order dated 03.05.2018 regarding status quo of the physical possession of the secured assets shall continue for a
period of two months from today. However, it is clarified that the extension of the interim protection shall not be construed as an expression on the
merits of the case by this Court.