Prabir Kumar Majumder vs IDBI Bank Limited And Ors

Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the bank-respondents.

The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm namely M/s P.K. Petroleum. For better management of Finance of the firm, the petitioner had taken the financial assistance from the bank namely IDBI Bank Limited in the form of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50 lakhs and the Term Loan of Rs.13.50 lakhs. For irregular payment, there arose a huge outstanding. Initially, there was a negotiated settlement but the petitioner could not observe its condition and as a result, the bank-respondent had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT, in short) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Act by instituting the action being Application No.538 of 2017.

The petitioner had approached again for One Time Settlement(OTS) or a payment of Rs.70 lakhs which the petitioner would pay within a period of three months from the date of sanction of such settlement. But the bank-authority did not concede to that proposal. However, they agreed that if the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1.2 crore within 31.03.2017 and as a token of acceptance of the said proposal 5% of the agreed sum is paid within a period of fifteen days, the bank-respondent would waive the remainder of the outstanding.

Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that 6% has already been paid to the bank-respondent but for certain stringent financial situation, the payment, as agreed, could not be paid by 31.03.2017 and as a result, the said amount was declared NPA.

In the meanwhile, the bank-respondents had introduced a scheme called Saral Karj Bhugtan Yojna (SKBY) in the year 2018-19 for One Time Settlement (OTS) in order to liquidate the non-performing assets. The petitioner was offered to pay under the said settlement scheme a sum of Rs.87,95,322/- against his total outstanding of Rs.2,05,53,533.06/- under Clause-(iv) of the said scheme. The petitioner had deposited 6% of the said amount and proposed to pay 10% of the settled amount in the bank. But since, the settlement was not implemented, the bank started the recovery proceeding in terms of the award passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioner has approached this court for providing a space for a fresh settlement.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that on 23.09.2019, the petitioner had approached the bank-respondent for One Time Settlement(OTS). Briefly, the amount which had been settled may be allowed to be paid within a period of six months, but no response has come from the bank and as such, the petitioner has approached this court for some protection to create a space for negotiated settlement.

Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the bank-respondent has submitted that nothing can be assured from the bank but the petitioner may file an elaborate proposal including the phases of payment. Thereafter, the bank can examine, subject to approval from the competent authority and take the decision.

In view of the statement made by Mr. Saha, learned counsel, this court is of the view that the petitioner shall file an elaborate proposal how he would pay the outstanding with flexibility, so that the bank can also take their call regarding all the conditions. The petitioner, therefore, shall file such application within 03.10.2019 and the bank-respondent shall take a call and communicate their decision to the petitioner within thirty days therefrom. Till then, the bank shall not take any adverse or coercive action against the petitioner.

It is made absolutely clear that if the settlement is proposed and sanctioned by the bank and the petitioner again fails to oblige the conditions set out in that settlement, the bank will be at liberty to recover the money as per law.

With these observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.