- (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.
(2.) While advancing his submissions a two fold argument has been made by Sri Verma, firstly, that the Reserve Bank of India guidelines have to be adhered to, keeping in view the fact that there is a possibility of a One Time Settlement, the second argument is that the bank itself has been approached and vide letter dated 12.04.2018, the bank has intimated the petitioner to substantially improve its offer amount for considering the liquidation of the contractual dues which may be accepted by the bank, a copy of the said letter have been placed before the Court.
(3.) The basic challenge raised in the writ petition is to the proceedings undertaken by the bank under the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as well as, the proceedings which are engaging the attention of Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. From the facts disclosed in the writ petition, it is evident that the National Company Law Tribunal had fixed 16.04.2018 for proceeding which according to the petitioner has now been adjourned for today i.e. 18.04.2018. The contention in paragraph no.42 of the petition is as follows: "That although there may not be a bar in the Bank proceeding under the RDDB&FI Act, 1993 or code, 2016, but when the One Time Settlement proposal is under active consideration, permitting simultaneous proceedings against the borrower would proper nor possible for the Bank to proceed to recover the amount from the borrower.";