Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dt. 19.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme (Annex.3) issued in pursuance of the RBI circular dt. 03.09.2005 to give benefits of one time settlement to the small and medium enterprises accounts holders. The learned Single Bench has observed that petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme because the scheme was issued subsequently by the RBI and subsequent to passing of the judgment and decree against the petitioner by the civil Court. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the appellant to take benefit under the scheme (Annex.3) applied before the respondent -bank by moving application (Annex.1) wherein the petitioner very clearly stated that the loan was taken and a recovery suit was filed by the respondent -bank and in that suit the decree was passed against the petitioner for Rs. 6,61,550.89 paisa by the Court of District Judge, Pali and she is prepared to fulfill all conditions of the scheme and tendered a cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/ -. The application is dt. 08.02.2006. The petitioner's said application was rejected by the respondent bank vide communication dt. 22.07.2006. The only ground given for rejection of the petitioner's proposal was that since the civil Court has passed the decree in favour of the bank, therefore, she is not eligible to be considered under the said scheme.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel pointed out that the policy clearly provides even adjustment of the amount against the decree by making specific provision under Sub -clause (3) of Clause 3.4 and the Sub -clause (5) under Clause 3.4 has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge.;