MOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed seeking for a declaration to quash Sub clause (c) of Clause 3 of annexure filed as PB as also the decision rendered by the third respondent dated July 16, 1991, filed as annexure PE whereunder the third respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to any other reliefs enumerated in the letter of the Reserve Bank of India dated September 19, 1990, and declare as a consequence thereof that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as envisaged in the proceedings filed as annexures PB, PB 1 and PH.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners it is necessary to advert to certain factual details. Petitioner No, 1 who is the proprietor of the second petitioner concern is carrying on business in the manufacture of furniture under the name and style of Himachal Furniture Industries at Thakur Dwara, Tehsil Palampur in District Kangra. He obtained initially a medium term loan of Rs. 10,000 and thereafter a further loan of Rs. 30,000 under the cash credit limit and under the said accounts, amounts were outstanding due and remained unpaid to the bank which necessitated the third respondent bank to file a suit in C. S. No. 29 of 1983 on the file of this court. The said suit came to be decreed on April 13, 1984, in a sum of Rs. 66,291.48 with future interest of 14 per cent. per annum from April 25, 1983. The decree was by way of a consent decree since the defendants conceded the claim and permission was granted to pay the decretal amount in instalments. Since the petitioners judgment debtors did not pay the sum as undertaken and permitted to be paid in instalments, the decree holder bank filed E. P. No. 3 of 1990 for execution and when the execution petition came up before the court, the first petitioner gave a statement on April 9, 1992, stating that he is a victim of the riots of 1984 and that in the riots not only his workshop was gutted in fire but he has also received serious injuries disabling him from work for four years and that though anyhow he wanted to liquidate the decretal amounts by way of instalments of Rs. 3,000 per month and, therefore, he may be given concession in interest if found entitled to it and as a matter of fact he had specifically given an undertaking to deposit in instalments of Rs. 3,000 per month with the decreeholder bank at Palampur. It was also stated by him that if he did not abide by the undertaking, action may be taken against him in accordance with law. The fact remained that he did not abide by the undertaking given and notice of contempt for having disobeyed and violated the undertaking even has also been issued by this court.

(3.) PER contra, K. D. Sood, learned counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondent banks, while reiterating the stand taken in the reply filed on their behalf contended that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the decree was passed by consent on April 13, 1984, and thereafter during the execution proceedings also the petitioners judgment debtors undertook to pay the amount in instalments and obtained an order to that extent on April 9, 1992, from this court, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the scheme particularly in the light of the specific provisions stipulated in Clause 3(c) of the scheme. Learned counsel also contended that the contumacious conduct of committing a breach of an undertaking given to this court as also the fact that the petitioners have means and financial position to pay the decretal amount renders them ineligible to the benefits of interest subsidy, envisaged in the scheme. Learned counsel also contended that Clause 3(c) is quite in accordance with law and being a matter of policy and also a matter of concession, not only the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners but there are no merits in the grievance of arbitrariness or unreasonableness alleged and consequently there are no merits in the writ petition. Learned counsel also disputed the claim of alleged discrimination by the scheme in enacting Clause 3(c). Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also adopted the same line of submissions as projected by learned counsel for the bank.