ASHOK PAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner no.1 had taken a loan from the respondent-Syndicate Bank for which the petitioners no.2 to 7 were guarantors. There was default in payment of the loan amount. By order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Agra the account of the petitioners was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 21868 of 2010 in which initially an interim order was granted staying the operation of the order dated 3.4.2010 but the same was not extended subsequently. The said writ petition is still pending. In the meantime, on 15.10.2011, the petitioners filed an application for One Time Settlement (OTS) which was under active consideration of the Bank. However, simultaneously proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short Act of 2002) were initiated against the petitioners and a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 was issued on 30.1.2012. Challenging the said notice dated 30.1.2012, this writ petition has been filed with a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the One Time Settlement proposal of the petitioners dated 15.10.2011.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Manish Goyal, appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri P.K. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank and have perused the record. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed by the petitioners and a counter affidavit to the averments made in the writ petition has also been filed by the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that the petitioners do not wish to file rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the Bank has stated that they do not wish to file any reply to the supplementary affidavits. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for hearing at this stage.
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the proposal for One Time Settlement is under active consideration of the Bank and as such, without taking any decision on the said proposal of the petitioners for One Time Settlement, the Bank should not be permitted to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002. It is contended that the petitioners would not be in a position to give a proper reply to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 as long as decision on the proposal for One Time Settlement is pending because they would not know as to on what terms and for what amount the Bank may or may not agree to a settlement with the petitioners. It is further submitted that the OTS proposal dated 15.10.2011 remained under active consideration of the Bank as would be clear from the communication of the General Manager of the Corporate Office of the Bank dated 22.12.2011 by which the petitioners were requested to discuss the proposal of One Time Settlement with the Regional Office of the Bank at Agra. Besides this, after filing of this writ petition and after notice had been served on the learned counsel for the Bank, a communication dated 2.11.2011 had been received by the petitioner on 13.2.2012 whereby the Bank has communicated to the petitioners that if the petitioners were really interested for One Time Settlement, a concrete proposal spelling out the terms of payment, including advance down payment should be submitted. On 21.2.2012 when the matter was last taken up and directed to be listed today, the petitioners were permitted to submit their fresh proposal in response to the communication dated 2.11.2011. It is stated that in pursuance thereof the petitioners have given their fresh proposal dated 25.2.2012 for One Time Settlement, which has been received by the Bank on 27.2.2012.;