AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent no.1 Indian Bank filed O.A. bearing No.2776/2019 titled as Indian Bank V. Messrs Colour Cottex Pvt. Ltd. & others which is pending disposal before DRT-III, Chandigarh. The appellant Seema Dhanda being defendant no.4 in the O.A. filed an application I.A. No.24/2025 under Section 379 of BNSS (earlier Section 340 of CrPC, 1973) for initiating proceedings under Section 215 of BNSS (earlier Section 195 of CrPC) against Nishant Shukla, Chief Manager and other concerned officers of the respondent no.1 Indian Bank for offences as alleged in the application. DRT-III, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 has dismissed the application. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.08.2025 is reproduced as under:-
It reveals from record that defendants had claimed that during the pendency of OTS proposal, applicant bank had filed IA for attachment of property of defendant No.4 along with the false affidavit of the Authorised Officer.
It further reveals from record that IA No.700/2021 was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2024 after hearing the arguments of both the parties as well as after considering all the facts, circumstances as well as evidence on record. Therefore, defendants had no right to object the application after advancing arguments and passing of order on it.
After considering all the above argument of learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 4, it appears that defendants are only interested in One Time Settlement Scheme.
As per established law this Tribunal has no authority for mediation regarding settlement of loan accounts between borrower and bank/FI. I was sole discretion of the applicant bank to accept or reject the OTS proposal submitted by defendants and by rejecting the OTS proposal and continue with the recovery proceedings there was no illegality committed by applicant bank. In fact, it is settled law that any borrower cannot claim as a right that OTS proposal submitted by him/her/it must be accepted by the Bank/FI.
From the facts mentioned in the application as well as arguments advanced by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, prima facie there is no case made out against the Authorised Officer Sh. Nishant Shukla, Chief Manager and any other official of the applicant bank. It shows from the record that OTS proposal, which was accepted between the parties was failed due to non-compliance of conditions by the defendants.
In light of above facts and circumstances, I.A. No.24/2025 is dismissed.
Sh. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for appellant argued that the respondent no.1 had filed O.A. for recovery of about Rs.105 crores against the defendants. The defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 01.02.2021 settled the account for an amount of Rs.41.39 crores and the said amount was to be paid on or before 31.03.2021. It was also agreed that for the payment beyond 31.03.2021, interest at 12.25% (simple) on reducing balance be paid from the date of communication of sanction. It is stated by Sh. Pankaj Gupta that the borrower paid Rs.10 crores in instalments from time to time but as the entire amount was not deposited by 31.03.2021 the respondent no.1 Indian Bank vide letter dated 01.06.2023 cancelled the OTS. However, it is emphatically argued that the OTS was valid till 01.06.2023.
Sh. Pankaj Gupta further argued that the respondent no.1 during the pendency of O.A. No.2776/2019 filed I.A. bearing No.700/2021 dated 07.12.2021 which was - allowed vide order dated 02.09.2024 against which the appellant has filed a Misc. Appeal bearing No.127/2025 before this Tribunal which is listed for hearing 15.07.2026. Sh. Gupta stated in the said application the respondent no.1 Indian Bank had prayed for attachment of the property bearing Shop No.B-II-383 situated at Bazar Bajajan, Ludhiana owned by the appellant Seema Dhanda in pursuance of the sale deed dated 24.01.2007. It is further stated that the said property was mortgaged in another loan account in the name of M/s Shree Ram Jewellers and the said loan account has already been settled. Sh. Gupta further argued that the respondent no.1 during the validity of OTS had made the prayer for attachment of the property which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2024.
Accordingly, it is prayed that appropriate legal proceedings as mentioned in I.A. No.24/2025 be initiated against Nishant Shukla, Chief Manager and other officers of respondent Indian Bank.
DRT-III, Chandigarh in the impugned order observed that the appellant being defendant No.4 along with other defendants was only interested in One-Time Settlement Scheme and the DRT does not have any authority for mediation regarding settlement of loan account between the borrower and the financial institution and it is the sole discretion of the bank either to accept or reject the OTS proposal. The Tribunal has also observed that the respondent no.1 bank has not committed any illegality if preferred to continue with the recovery proceedings. The DRT ultimately observed that prima facie no case is made out against Nishant Shukla, Chief Manager or other officers of the respondent bank.
It is apparent from the record that the O.A. was filed for recovery of Rs.105 crores (approx.) which was settled at Rs.41.39 crores vide Sanction Letter dated 01.02.2021 and the entire settled amount was to be paid on or before 31.03.2021. The borrower along with guarantors paid only Rs.10 crores out of this OTS amount and failed to pay the remaining settled amount. If the respondent no.1 initiated proceedings for the recovery of the outstanding dues against the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5, there is nothing illegal and the respondent no.1 bank was well within its right to recover the entire outstanding amount from the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5 who are defendants in the O.A. before the DRT. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 which warrants interference from this Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.