- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been preferred for restraining the respondents from taking action against the petitioner in view of the letter dated 13.4.2006 and 17.4.2006 (Annexure-9 and 11 respectively) as, according to the petitioner he is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 12.43 lakhs within a period of 3 months from 31.3.2006 and if not acceptable otherwise he is even ready to pay the amount in one go. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the said letter dated 13.4.2006 whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that if the entire amount outstanding under the O.T.S. scheme is not paid by the petitioner within 15 days, the facility will be withdrawn forfeiting the amount in question. Petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed absolving him of all the liabilities after payment of the balance amount dues.
(2.) According to the petitioner in the year 1972 the petitioner-company was set up for manufacturing certain engineering products and in the year 1982 it entered into technical collaboration with Japanese company. The petitioner applied for term loan from the respondent--BICICO in November, 1982 and was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 50 lakhs subject to approval of refinance of Industrial Development Bank of India. It is the contention of the petitioner that only Rs. 40.67 lakhs were disbursed in 17 months. Petitioner was constrained to arrange money from various sources at much higher rate of interest to complete the project. Petitioner started repayment of the loan amount and total sum of Rs. 11,30,864.90 has been paid to BICICO. According to the petitioner repayments made till 1989 would be Rs. 23,65,864.90. However, action under Section 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act. 1951 were undertaken by BICICO vide reference no. 1442 dated 20.7.1989 and because of the financial stringency petitioner was forced to close down the unit in the year 1990 before it could start its commercial productions. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondents for One Time Settlement (O.T.S.) for the dues but the respondents proceeded against the petitioner in a non maintainable certificate proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act against the petitioner and its promoters wherein he appeared and filed its objection. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 4, who was acting as certificate officer, BICICO, Patna asked the petitioner to clear the entire dues of Rs. 54,61,000.00, where after, petitioner immediately expressed his eagerness to pay the amount of Rs. 33.43 lakhs after deducting already paid amount disbursed by BICICO enclosing the draft and cheques of the said payments. Petitioner asked for some more time for repayment asking the authorities to keep the encashment of the cheques in abeyance till 31.6.2006, which was arbitrarily refused by the respondents by letter dated 7.3.2006. Thereafter, warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner in the certificate proceeding for realization of dues of Rs. 5,54,86,000/-, which is highly disputable. In the circumstances, petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents despite being willing to liquidate the genuine amount has moved this court for the aforesaid reliefs.
(3.) Respondents, on the other hand, through their counter affidavit have stated that petitioner is a habitual defaulter. He had claimed relief under the O.T.S. Scheme. 2004 under the category of non commissioned unit. But when he was asked to submit necessary documents in order to support the same, he failed to submit the documents. Even the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured and huge outstanding amount of Rs. 16,64,75,220/- in fact were found outstanding dues against the petitioner as on 31.3.2008, the detail of which was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.5.2008 and 26.5.2008, brought on record by way of I.A. No. 1675 of 2008 (annexed as Annexure-20 & 20A). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner being habitual defaulter, steps for action were taken under Section 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 by BICICO. However, under the O.T.S. Policy maximum payment period is 6 months only and, therefore request of the petitioner was not accepted for extension of time.;