Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) THIS Court has considered the application for impleadment taken out by the guarantors being G.A. No. 3848 of 2006. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicant and considering the averments contained in the application, this Court is of the considered view that the presence of the applicant is not at all necessary for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the writ petition. The application for impleadment stands dismissed, without order for costs.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 (hereafter the company) was extended credit facilities by the respondent -Bank (hereafter the Bank). However, the company failed to clear its dues on time. The Bank filed a suit for recovery of its dues against the company in this Court being Suit No. 457 of 1985. After creation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 22 of 1994. Before the Tribunal, terms of settlement was filed by the parties. The proceeding before the Tribunal stood disposed of in terms of the settlement. A certificate was issued directing the company to make payment of Rs. 8,70,06,172.56. The company, however, failed to clear the dues of the Bank resulting in the Bank taking recourse to a proceeding for execution. There were certain other proceedings initiated by the company and its guarantors, reference to which is, unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the present petition. On July 27, 2000, the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter RBI) issued a circular to all public sector Banks conveying guidelines for recovery of dues relating to non -performing asset (NPA) of public sector Banks. Revised guidelines were issued by the RBI on January 29, 2003. The company sought to take advantage of the guidelines issued by the RBI for one -time settlement and approached the Bank in this respect. It offered to pay a sum of Rs. 3 crores which, on the request of the Bank, was increased to Rs. 3.5 crores. However, there being no further development, the company by its letter dated June 20, 2005, again requested the Bank to settle the issue once and for all. The Bank not having responded, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 344 of 2006, which stood disposed of on March 7, 2006. By the said order, the Bank was directed to reply to the company's application and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within four weeks from the date. The reply was directed to be a reasonable one and non -discriminatory.
(3.) THE company supplemented its application by filing a representation dated March 23, 2006. The Bank by its letter dated March 27, 2006, rejected the prayer of the company based on a number of grounds.;