- (1.) Leave granted in all the cases.
(2.) The appellants, namely, M/s Devidayal Castigns Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Tibrewala Industries Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 2120-2121 of 2014 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 16426-16427 of 2014 respectively are the borrowers and the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22778 of 2013 is the Haryana State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"). In 2005, the Corporation adopted and promulgated a policy whereby borrowers were given an option to settle their dues on the basis of the principal amount of the outstanding in the loan accounts as on the date on which the accounts were declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Pursuant to the said policy, admittedly, letters were written and offers were given to the applicants-borrowers to deposit 10% of such dues as a pre-condition for consideration of their cases. The borrowers accepted the said offer and responded accordingly. The said response, however, came to be rejected in a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board held on 22nd December, 2015 wherein an in-principle decision was taken that in cases where the value of the securities was more than the settlement amount, the Corporation should resort to the sale of the secured properties. The aforesaid resolution of the Executive Committee was subsequently approved by the Board. On the basis of the aforesaid decision taken by the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors the applications of the borrowers for settlement of their cases in terms of the policy outlined above were rejected. Aggrieved, the borrowers moved the High court which answered two writ petitions in question in favour of the Corporation and one against the Corporation. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.
(3.) The short issue that would require consideration of the Court is whether the decision of the Executive Committee dated 22nd December, 2005 as approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation not to accept the settlement amount under the policy in force in cases where the value of the secured properties is more than the said settlement amount, amounts to a change of policy to the detriment of the borrower and, therefore, the Corporation should be held bound to accept the settlement amount as per the policy in force.;