- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 1152,1239, 1240 and 1241 of 2007 as all the petitions relate to one group of companies. Even questions of law and facts involved are common to all the petitions. However, the facts are being referred from C. W. P. No. 1152 of 2007, which has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for issuance of direction to the State Bank of Patiala-respon-dent Nos. 1 and 2 to settle the loan account of the petitioner-company in terms of the guidelines/directives issued by the Reserve bank of India-respondent No. 3 from time to time for settlement of accounts which have been rendered Non-Performing Asset (N. P. A. ). The petitioner-company has also sought further direction to respondent No. 3 to exercise its power under the Banking regulation Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act')and get the guidelines/directives for the settlement of NPA account enforce by issuing directions/instructions to the respondent Bank. It has still further been prayed that sale notice dated 23-12-2006 (P. 17) be quashed.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner-company is a Private Limited Company, which was incorporated on 11-2-1988 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of hosiery goods and spinning of yarn, which were to be supplied to its concerns/groups as also to other manu-i facturers of knitwears. Those knitwears were to be exported out of India. For carrying on its business, the petitioner-company availed financial assistance in the form of Cash credit Hypothecation Limited (CCL) and medium Term Loan (MTL) from the respondent Bank. It is claimed that uptil 1994 the petitioner-company continued to serve its financial liabilities towards the respondent bank, however, in the year 1994 a major fire broke out in the unit of the petitioner -company resulting into loss of around Rs. 5. 0 crores of raw material and semi-finished goods, which were to be exported. The machinery and building were also damaged. It is asserted that on account of aforementioned incident of fire the petitioner-company could not adhere to the repayment schedule and resultantly on 31-3-1995 its account with the respondent Bank became a Non-Performing Asset. In the year 1997, the claim lodged by the petitioner-company with Insurance Company was also rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner-company approached the respondent Bank with a rehabilitation proposal. After considering the rehabilitation proposal, the respondent bank conveyed its approval with some modifications to the petitioner -company vide letter dated 20-8-1999 (P-l), wherein properties which were kept as collateral securities as also the repayment schedule were also specified. However, there was change brought-about in the constitution of the petitioner-company in pursuance to some family settlement and the petitioner-company instead of accepting the rehabilitation proposal sought one time settlement of its account with the respondent Bank so as to discharge its continuing and recurring future liabilities. In this regard, the petitioner-company while making payment of Rs. 4. 06. 331/-, vide letter dated 22-1-2000 (P. 2), requested the respondent Bank for one time settlement of its account. It is claimed that on 27-7-2000, the Reserve Bank of India-respondent No. 3 made amendments in the guidelines/policy for recovery of NPAs with a view to effect maximum recoveries from the NPA accounts of the banks. The said guidelines were issued in public interest in general and in the interest of banking policy in particular. The guidelines were to be applied uniformly without any discretion and discrimination as per the settlement formula stated in the guidelines itself (P. 3 ).
(3.) ON 26-9-2000, the petitioner-company again applied for one time settlement under the guidelines dated 27-7-2000, while giving the calculation of the outstanding amount which were payable. It was also requested that the earlier payment'of Rs,. 4,06,331/- be adjusted towards one time settlement (P. 4 ). On 25-4-2001, respondent bank approved the one time settlement of rs. 35 lacs terming it as the compromise offer of the petitioner-company1 (P-5 ). It has been alleged that there was no reason to offer the said amount of Rs. 35 lacs as the account being NPA was liable to be settled only under the statutory guidelines. The petitioner-company accepted the alleged compromise amount of Rs. 35 lacs with further stipulation that the same could be paid only by selling its mortgaged property i. e. C-172, focal Point, Phase V. Dhandari Kalan, ludhiana. The respondent Bank was also apprised that since to view of the family settlement the aforementioned property had come to the share of Shri Munish Dhir, one of the Director of the petitioner-company, the same should not be clubbed with other accounts. The petitioner-company further paid an amount of Rs. 21. 45 lacs with a view to finally liquidate its liability under the one time settlement policy till the expiry of the extended period for payment of OTS i. e. till 31-3-2003.;