Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners seek a direction upon the Bank to refund a sum of Rs.56.25 lakhs which the petitioners made over to the Bank while proposing on one time settlement.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners refers to the proposal for one time settlement. He submits that, the proposal mooted by the petitioners was premised upon the request of the petitioners to enter into a one-time settlement. The petitioner tendered a sum of Rs.56.25 lakhs to the Bank on the basis of the one-time settlement. The petitioners categorically stated that, in the event, the petitioners' proposal was not accepted by the Bank, then, the sum was required to be refunded. The amount should be held by the bank in a "No Lien Account" pending the decision of the Bank to enter into the one time settlement. The Bank not having entered into the one time settlement, the Bank had no business to retain the sum of Rs.56.25 lakhs of the petitioners. The Bank was obliged to refund the sum. He relies upon Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 and submits that, the right of lien cannot be exercised by the Bank on such subject. In support of his contentions, he relies upon a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) reported at (Laxmi Grih Udyog & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2007 AIR(MP) 114). He submits that, there are recovery proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the sense that proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as well as proceedings under Section 171 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are pending. Therefore, according to him, the Bank ought to have refunded the sum of Rs.56.25 lakhs to the petitioners.
(3.) The Bank is represented.;