Uma Devi vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the sale proclamation issued by the Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 29.01.2025.

The petitioner had got a loan sanctioned for business in the name and style of Shivangi Product and Suppliers. There was default in payment of the loan installment because of Covid-19 and consequently, the respondent Bank approved one time settlement (OTS) of the converted NPA for a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/-.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 13.08.2022 in the National Lok Adalat held at Ranchi, petitioner had appeared and stated that he had paid Rs. 19,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- and thereby National Lok Adalat issued direction to the Certificate Holder Bank to consider the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- as full and final satisfaction of the loan amount.

Despite the order passed by the National Lok Adalat, the recovery proceeding was initiated and sale proclamation has been issued which is under challenge in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that there was no full and final settlement in the National Lok Adalat with regard to the outstanding loan to be paid by the petitioner, and it was simply observed that the respondent-Bank to consider the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as final settlement. However, as the outstanding amount of Rs. 22,32,602/- along with pendente lite and future simple interest @ 10% per annum was due from 3.3.2017. The claim could not be settled because of the huge gap between the existing liability and the amount agreed to be paid.

It is contended on behalf of the respondent-Bank and rightly so that the impugned order is not amenable to challenge under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Under the circumstance, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2023) 17 SCC 311 (South Indian Bank Limited & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Another), this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.