NEETU AUTOS PVT LTD Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed as against the final order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, In TA-876/1997. THE Bank filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount due to the Bank. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was settled between the parties for a sum of Rs. 62 lakhs and the defendants agreed to pay that amount and it was accepted by the Bank also by means of a Compromise Memo dated 13.3.1999 and the amount was payable by 30.6.1999. On various dates till 27.8.1999, the defendants paid Rs. 30,50,000/- and as on 27.8.1999 there was balance amount of Rs. 31,50,000/-. THEreafter, the defendants again requested the Bank by their own letter dated 18.2.2001 to give further concessions for settlement of the amount by giving benefit under the revised Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines. THE appellant has stated in that letter dated 18.1.2001 that the appellant has since obtained information regarding revised RBI guidelines on Compromise Settlements for Recovery of Dues in NPA accounts issued by the Reserve Bank of India and as per the revised guidelines. NPAs relating to all sectors and also to cases pending before the Courts are covered and settlement can be effected by applying the revised RBI guidelines and has requested the Bank to give him the benefit of revised RBI guidelines and to restrict his liability to Rs. 55,50,000/-. So, in the letter dated 18.1.2001 the appellant himself has asked the Bank to restrict his total liability to Rs. 55.50 lakhs by giving benefit of revised RBI guidelines. THE proposal given by the appellant to settle the matter for Rs. 55.50 lakhs was reconsidered and accepted by the Bank and the balance amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was also paid by the defendants to the Bank and the entire matter was settled for Rs. 55.50 lakhs as requested by the defendant in his letter dated 18.1.2001.

(2.) When the case was taken up before the DRT for final hearing, the defendants claimed for further reduction in the amount of final settlement to the extent of RBI's One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme and wanted to give credit to the amount already paid towards OTS Scheme and the defendants prayed for revision of the amount already paid pursuant to the old Compromise and which is now in excess of the present OTS Scheme as per the RBI guidelines. That prayer was strongly opposed by the Bank on the ground that the earlier compromise has become final and that can neither be re-opened not modified in terms of One Time Settlement as prayed for by the defendants and further reduction cannot be granted. The Presiding Officer, DRT, considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and disposed of the TA in terms of the compromise entered into between both the parties based on the offer-cum-request letter of the defendants dated 18.1.2001 and allowing the TA to the extent of Compromise agreement entered into between the parties. Aggrieved against the order the appellant-defendants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant further submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,58,871/- has been added as interest on 5.1.1993 after a lapse of six quarters as against the required period of only two quarters to declare an account as an NPA and so there cannot be doubt that in this case the maximum amount that can be recovered will be only Rs. 38,97,208/- and the maximum the Bank can collect as per the RBI norms is Rs. 38,97,208/- only and as the Bank has collected Rs. 55,50,000/- by way of settlement, the balance amount of Rs. 16,52,792/- has to be refunded. On the other hand, COUNSEL for the respondent Bank submitted that originally the matter was settled for Rs. 62 lakhs and again k was reduced to Rs. 55,50,000/- and if interest was calculated and added it would have come to more than Rs. 73 lakhs and by showing concession only the amount was reduced to Rs. 55.50 lakhs and that is proper and the appellant is not entitled for any further reduction and the appellant has also paid entire amount of Rs. 55.50 lakhs and the appellant also agreed for payment of the amount in his letter dated 18.1.2001 and the appellant is not entitled for further reduction and refund of that amount.