KESHAV Vs. UCO BANK REP. BY ITS MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent -bank to consider the notice dated 07.01.2013 at Annexure -F to the petition and act as per the order dated 26.06.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 44137/2011. The second prayer made in the instant petition does not survive at this juncture inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 11.11.2013 whereby it is contended that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - has already been paid to the respondent -bank. The memo is taken on record. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner had obtained certain loans from the respondent -bank. As default had been committed, the respondent -bank were entitled to initiate action for recovery. In that circumstance, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 44137/2011. The said petition was disposed of on 26.06.2012. By the said order, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 07.07.2011 which had been made by the petitioner seeking settlement of the loan as requested by him. Pursuant to the same, the Chief Manager of the respondent -bank has issued the communication dated 26.09.2012, whereunder the due payable by the petitioner was crystallized at Rs. 4,00,000/ - as full and final settlement of the loan account. According to the petitioner, though he was willing to pay the said amount, as there was change in the Manager, the transaction was not completed. It is in that context, the petitioner is stated to have issued the legal notice dated 07.01.2013 calling upon the respondent -bank to settle the matter as per the letter dated 26.09.2012. The respondent -bank got issued a reply on 21.01.2013 whereunder the respondent -bank has notified the petitioner that since the said amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - was not paid within the time as provided by respondent -bank, the offer of settlement is deemed to have been cancelled. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of the reply notice dated 21.01.2013 at Annexure -G issued on behalf of the respondent -bank would put at rest the fact that the respondent -bank had in fact considered the representation and had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - in full and final settlement of their claims. The notice would also indicate that the said benefit has been withdrawn since there was default on the part of the petitioner in paying the amount at least before 30.09.2012. The petitioner no doubt has put forth certain explanation in the instant petition indicating the reason for which the amount could not be deposited by him within the time frame indicated earlier. Even if these aspects are kept in view, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner and the respondent -bank in any event at one point of time have agreed to settle the matter on the terms as indicated in the communication dated 26.09.2012 Though the statement made by the petitioner with regard to change of disposition and therefore there was delay in depositing the amount need not be gone into in detail so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was justified, the fact remains that even as on the date of filing the petition on 17.04.2013, the petitioner has not deposited the amount either with the respondent -bank or before this Court to establish his bona fides. But the amount has been presently paid.