B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Dhar Sahai and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents no. 4 and 5 to consider the proposal of OTS amount of Rs. 40 crores within a period of six months. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the notice dated 17.12.2018 issued by the Addl. District Magistrate in exercise of powers under (the Act, 2002). The petitioner as per the averments of the writ petition is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing bottling, marketing and selling of alcohol and alcoholic beverages having a unit in the name of Pilkhani Distillery and Chemical Works. It is stated that the petitioner was initially sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 35 crores and a working capital limit of Rs. 10 crores by the respondent no. 4 in 2011. In 2012 a working capital limit totaling Rs. 35 crores was sanctioned by erstwhile State Bank of Travancore, erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad and erstwhile SBBJ, now merged with State Bank of India. In 2013 a further Term Loan of Rs. 20 crores was sanctioned by the respondent no. 4 and in 2014 Rs. 23 crores as Working Capital Limit was sanctioned as part of Restructuring by the respondent Banks. It is stated that the loan was reconstructed on 30.6.2014 and joint documents for reconstructing were executed on 8.9.2014. It is stated that in 2016 the total credit facility availed by the petitioner was Rs. 127.91 crores. It is stated that the petitioner came in serious financial crises and its country liquor operations were closed in March, 2017 and a notice under section 13(2) read with section 13(3) of the Act, 2002 was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 19,60,78,735.58/- alongwith interest. A further notice was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,48,48,063/-. The erstwhile Bank SBBJ also issued notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 calling upon the petitioner and its guarantors to pay Rs. 21,42,47,287/- with interest, total amount of Rs. 133,43,99,162.18/-. The petitioner is stated to have filed his objections under section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002 on 11.2.2017 but it is stated that no reply has been given by the Bank. Thereafter a possession notice under section 14 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been issued on 24.3.2017 by the respondent no. 5- Bank on behalf of all the other respondent Banks taking symbolic possession of the mortgaged places and parcels of the factory land and building plant and machinery and all constructions therein and other construction on other land of the Company. The petitioner submitted a one time settlement (OTS) proposal for settling the dues of the Bank at Rs. 40 crores. It is stated that the Company is willing to execute OTS and there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings under section 14 of the Act, 2002.
(3.) On 3.1.2019 we had directed the counsel for the respondent Bank to obtain instructions with regard to the proposal of the petitioner for payment of OTS amount of Rs. 40 crores within a period of six months as per the proposal submitted by the Company in its meeting held with the Bank on 3.9.2018. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank however passed on to the court an order dated 4.1.2019 which mentions that the proposal regarding the offer of the Company of Rs. 40 crores to settle the outstanding dues of both the Banks was disclosed in the lender's meeting and the petitioner was advised to increase the OTS amount so that the proposal may be considered. The matter was again discussed and it was held that as against the outstanding balance of the consortium of Rs. 167.61 crores the offer of Rs. 45 crores cannot be accepted as the value is subdued. The Bank, however, advised the petitioner to resubmit the improved proposal at the earliest. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the petitioner was also seeking quashing of the notice dated 17.12.2018 issued under section 14 of the Act 2002 by the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), the petitioner had a remedy by way of an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act, 2002.;