UDAYSING SHAMRAO CHAVAN Vs. RATNAKAR BANK LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on exhibit No. 36 in Original Application No. 104/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant that necessary directions be given to the applicant Bank to apply one lime settlement guidelines and settle the alleged dues of Rs. 29,25,661/- in 4 six monthly instalments.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Matkar for the appellant and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer.
Contention of the appellant is that he had filed an application for one time settlement before the applicant Bank but applicant Bank was not considering the same. It is submitted that the scheme of one time settlement is non-discretionary and non-discriminatory and therefore, had prayed that the direction be issued to the applicant Bank to effect settlement under one lime settlement scheme, settle the matter for Rs. 29,25,661/- to be paid in 4 six monthly instalments.
(3.) THE learned advocate Mr. Bhagwat appearing for the respondent Bank countered this argument by submitting that first of all the guidelines were not applicable to private sector Bank like THE Ratnakar Bank Ltd., who is the respondent in the appeal. Mr. Bhagwat further submitted that the appellant was a wilful defaulter and that the application was filed by the appellant after the due date and therefore, it could not be considered.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.