- (1.) Seeking quashing of notice dated 09.12.2011 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondentBanks to immediately reschedule the termloan sanctioned in favour of the petitionerTrust and for disbursement of loan of Rs. 21.44 crores, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) The facts narrated in the writ petition are briefly summarized thus; The petitionerTrust was established to provide health education and health care services to all class of society. The petitioner was granted Essentiality Certificate for establishing a medical college in the name of Paritran Medical College and Hospital with intake capacity of 150 students in the college and 750 beds in the hospital. The petitioner submitted a detailed project report for taking loan from the respondentBanks. Originally the project cost was assessed at Rs. 165.92 crores. A consortium of banks, the Punjab National Bank being the lead bank decided to provide finance, the details of which are as under: (a) Punjab National Bank (Lead Bank) Rs. 46.5 crores (b) Union Bank of India (Member) Rs. 23.25 crores (c) Oriental Bank of Commerce(Member) Rs. 23.25 crores When the Trust was at the verge of completion of the project the Medical Council of India, vide notification dated 13.11.2009 notified the revised guidelines relating to establishment of medical college which drastically effected the project initially conceived by the petitionerTrust for establishing the Paritran Medical College and Hospital. As a consequence, the project cost escalated and not only a huge part of construction was to be demolished, the project itself got delayed. The repayment of the termloan was to start from August, 2010 and as per the original plan/project report the Medical College was expected to start from academic session 201011 however, due to the change in the MCI guidelines the project could not be completed in time and therefore, the affiliation from MCI could not be obtained for commencing academic session 201011. In the changed circumstance the petitionerTrust approached the consortium of banks for reschedulement of the loan account. Meetings between the consortium of banks and the representative of the petitionerTrust were held on 29.06.2010 and 28.08.2010 and finally the lead bankPunjab National Bank agreed for reschedulment of the loan and accorded its sanction for the same which was communicated to the petitioner Trust vide letter dated 14.12.2010. The Punjab National Bank had infact sanctioned an additional loan on 26.03.2010 which was subsequently cancelled because the other members of the consortium did not sanction their share, that is, 50% of the additional loan. In the meantime, the petitionerTrust applied for approval of MCI for academic session 201213 and the MCI vide letter dated 16.03.2012 sought proof of loan sanctioned for the project. The project now is complete and only some corrective measures are to be taken. A site inspection has also been conducted by the team of the State Government however, in the meantime the account of the petitioner was declared NPA and notice dated 09.12.2011 was issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner submitted its representation dated 21.01.2012 under Section 13(3A) which was rejected by the respondentBanks by nonspeaking orders. The petitionerTrust made several representations to the respondentBanks however, in a most arbitrary manner the respondentBanks initiated proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, the petitionerTrust was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the lead bank, taking an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitionerTrust was demanded a sum of Rs. 98,65,47,296.75/ with future and pendentelite interest however, the Trust neither paid any interest nor installment as per the repayment schedule. Due to nonpayment of interest and installments the account became overdue for more than 90 days and as such the account was categorised as NPA on 31.03.2011 by the Punjab National Bank, by the Oriental Bank of Commerce on 31.12.2010 and by the Union Bank of India on 30.09.2010. The petitioner was thereafter allowed about 9 months' time to repay the overdue amount however, the petitioner did not respond and therefore, the respondentbank was compelled to issue notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The representation of the petitionerTrust was considered by the respondentbank, being the leader of the consortium bank and reschedulement of loan account was refused on account of various reasons, one of the reasons was that the allied concern of the petitionerTrust namely, Maa Lalita Hospital and Research Centre had already come under NPA category and therefore, request for sanctioning additional term loan could not have been considered. The respondentbank has already initiated action under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and issued possession notice dated 07.08.2012 which was duly affixed at the site and published in leading newspapers on 12.08.2012 and 13.08.2012 however, the petitioner suppressed the material facts from the Court and obtained an interim protection vide order dated 25.09.2012.;