Rajendra Singhal vs State Bank of India and Another

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Mr. V.S. Yadav has put in appearance on behalf of both the respondents. Service is complete. It is second round of litigation by the petitioner-principal borrower who took cash credit facility of Rs. 24.75 Lakhs on 16.05.2005 and earlier when he became defaulter and his account became NPA notice U/s 13(2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act, 2002") came to be served way back on 28.11.2006. However, the matter could be settled before Debts Recovery Tribunal and the petitioner was permitted to avail facilities.

As it reveals from the record that his account again became NPA and notice U/s 13(2) of the Act, 2002 came to be served and after affording opportunity to submit objections as provided U/s 13(3A) the respondent-bank initiated further proceedings U/s 13(4) of the Act, 2002 vide communication dt. 17.05.2012 and at that stage the petitioner approached to this Court by filing CWP-8988/2012 which came to be decided vide order dt. 19.07.2012 with direction to the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking settlement of his NPA account under one time settlement scheme by submitting representation ventilating his grievance and the bank was also directed to decide such representation if made obviously in accordance with law within the stipulated period granted therein.

The petitioner pursuant thereto submitted representation obviously to get his NPA account settled under one time settlement scheme and there was pre-condition to participate in OTS scheme introduced by the respondent-bank to deposit 5% of the outstanding as on the date of NPA and communication was sent to the petitioner on 04.08.2012 followed with 17.08.2012 (Annx. 13 & 15) respectively but the petitioner failed to deposit 5% of the outstanding as on the date of NPA and after the proceedings were initiated to put the property to auction over which security interest was created, the petitioner again approached to this Court by filing instant petition with the grievance that despite there being order of the Court & willing of the petitioner still his NPA account has not been settled.

Counsel for petitioner has emphasis to submit that there are apparent discrepancies in the statement of account and even the amount which the petitioner paid after his account became NPA has also not been credited to his account and under these circumstances when he always remained willing to settle his account still his property which is mortgaged with the respondent-bank if put to auction his rights will be seriously jeopardized.

After issuance of notice, Mr. V.S. Yadav, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents and submits that after the petitioner failed to deposit 5% of the outstanding as on the date of NPA, his account was not to be examined under OTS scheme any further and apart from it as per the conditions of OTS scheme the case of the present petitioner was not covered. However, further submits that once the proceedings have been initiated after due compliance of statutory mandate of law provided under the Act, 2002, the petitioner has got alternative remedy of approaching to the Debts Recovery Tribunal U/s 17 of the Act and once the statute provides mechanism to ventilate the grievance, the discretionary remedy which the petitioner has availed is not available to him and in support of submission placed reliance upon the judgment in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others,

This Court also finds substance in the submission of respondent''s counsel that once the proceedings were initiated under the Act, 2002 and after statutory notices being served opportunity was afforded and only thereafter proceedings U/s 13(4) came to be initiated against the petitioner admittedly remedy is available to him if so advised to avail U/s 17 of the Act, 2002 and that being alternative & effective remedy available to the petitioner-borrower, this Court is ordinarily not supposed to interfere in its equitable jurisdiction U/Art. 226 of the Constitution and this what the Apex Court has observed in the judgment, referred to supra.

As regards the submission made by petitioner''s counsel that despite order of the Court his representation was not considered by the respondent for settlement of the NPA account under the OTS scheme, suffice it to say that the petitioner was served with communication regarding condition for participating in the OTS scheme to examine willingness of the borrower by depositing 5% of the outstanding as on the date of NPA and admittedly the petitioner failed to comply with and ordinarily there was no occasion for the respondent-bank to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner for settlement under OTS scheme and apart from it if the petitioner has been informed about the outstanding dues of his NPA account as per available records of the respondent-bank and proceedings were initiated against him what is being alleged by the petitioner regarding discrepancy in his statement of account is always for him to avail the remedy available under the Act, 2002 but this Court is not supposed to hold a roving enquiry regarding settlement of outstanding dues of NPA account of the borrower. Consequently, this Court does not find substance in the instant petition and same accordingly stands dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the remedy which the law permits to him and it is further made clear that what has been observed while disposing of instant petition shall not influence the authority and at the same time rights of the parties may not be adversely affected if the remedy provided under law being availed by the petitioner.