- (1.) We have heard Shri A.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Singhal appears for respondents-bank. The petitioner-company was granted financial assistance of Rs. 45.6 lacs as terra loan, and Rs. 24 lacs as working capital loan on 22.11.2005. It was required to re-pay the loan amount beginning from the year 2007. Since the unit became functional only in 2007, the respondents-bank rescheduled the repayment to start from 2009. The petitioner defaulted in payment of the amount, on which on 30.9.2009, the loan account was declared as non-performing asset. The petitioner negotiated for one time settlement, of the defaulted amount, and dissatisfied with the process, is challenging invocation of proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to recover the recalled unpaid loan amount from the mortgaged assets.
(2.) Shri A.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the bank has deviated from the mandate of the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, laying down the guidelines for rehabilitation of the small scale industries, and that without finalising the OTS proposal, the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was sent for recovery of Rs. 1,40,49,825/- worked out on the total outstanding liability towards SOD; OSL-1; OSL-II and WCTL loans as on 31.12.2012, giving rise to this writ petition.
(3.) Shri A.N. Singh submits that the bank had accepted the OTS proposal of Rs. 106 lacs and the petitioner had acted on the proposal and deposited Rs. 5,30,000/-. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Sardar Associates and others v. Punjab & Sindh Bank,2010 1 AWC 158, in which the Supreme Court had set aside the judgment of the High Court, and had held that the circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for OTS are binding on the nationalised banks under Sections 21, 35-A and 46 (5) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949.;