- (1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of letter dated September 5, 2006 (annexure P11), notice dated August 20, 2007 (annexure P14) and also letter dated January 4, 2008 (annexure P17) and a direction to accept payment by way of one-time settlement in terms of one-time settlement scheme dated March 4, 2004 (annexure P4).
(2.) The case set out in the petition is that the petitioner took loans from the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC) and Punjab Financial Corporation (PFC) apart from the Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC). The petitioner made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for declaring the petitioner a sick industrial company in terms of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions), Act, 1985 ("the SICA"). On June 23, 1997, the petitioner was declared a sick industrial company. The rehabilitation scheme was prepared, but ultimately vide order dated December 18, 2002, the BIFR recommended winding up of the petitioner-company. Against the said order, appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority for Industrial Financial and Reconstruction (AAIFR). In the meanwhile, the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Securitisation Act") was issued and possession of land, plant, machinery and building was taken in February 2004, with police help. The petitioner settled the dues of PSIDC as per one-time settlement.
(3.) The contention raised in the petitions is that once the petitioner had paid dues as per the one-time settlement scheme, proceedings under the Securitisation Act, could not be taken. The account of the petitioner was never declared a NPA by PSIDC, which was necessary before taking action under the said Act. The petitioner was not given a hearing. Since the proceedings were pending before the BIFR, action under the Securitisation Act, was not sustainable.;