IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9840 of 2007 Yogendra Mandal, Son of Late Budhan Mandal, Resident of Village- Behat, Police Station-Jhanjharpur (R.S.) District-Madhubani. (Bihar). ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of India, North Block New Delhi. 2. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Old Secretariat Bihar, Patna. 3. The Minister of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Reserve Bank of India through the Chief General Manager-in-Chief, Department of non Banking Supervision, Second Floor, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Centre No. 1 World Trade Centre, Mumbai- 400005. 5. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 6. Sri Revati Charan Jha, the Assistant General Manager, Main Branch, State Bank of India, Laherisarai, Darbhanga. 7. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India (Agriculture Development Branch) Madhubani. 8. The then Branch Manager (Sanction & Disbursing) State Bank of India (ADB) Madhubani. 9. The then Field Officer (Sanction & Disbursing) State Bank of India (ADB) Madhubani. 10. The then Circle Officer (C.O.) Lakhnaur Block Police Station- Jhanjarpur (R.S.) District-Madhubani. 11. The then Circle Inspector Lakhnaur Block Police Station-Jhanjarpur (R.S.) District-Madhubani. 12. The then Halka Karmachari Lakhnaur Block Police Station-Jhanjarpur (R.S.) District-Madhubani. 13. The then Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Jhanjharpur Sub-Division, Police Station-Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. 14. Dhananjay Jha Son of not known, Advocate, District Court, Madhubani. 15. Proprietor M/s Mithilanchal Wohan & Tractor Pvt. Ltd, Madhubani. 16. K.K. Mishra, Branch Manager State Bank of India, (A.D.B.) Madhubani. 17. Hare Ram Mishra, Enforcement Agent, resident of Village-Tardiha (Bath), P.O. Tardihar (Both), Police Station-Madhepur, District- Madhubani. ….Respondents. ----------- 02. 22.04.2009 The petitioner had sought for and was granted an agricultural loan of Rs. 1,74,000/- in 1994. The financial - 2 - accommodation was extended by the State Bank of India (Agricultural Development Branch) Madhubani. The said loan was for purchase of a tractor and was secured by hypothecation of the tractor. Petitioner was a chronic defaulter. Bank having been unable to persuade the petitioner to honour its legal obligations in discharging the debt resorted to appointing a recovery agent who forcibly took possession of the tractor in question. For recovery of dues, Bank instituted proceedings under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act and then has now threatened proceedings under SRFAESI Act. These have brought the petitioner to this Court challenging to jurisdiction of the Bank to take possession of the tractor forcibly. It is submitted that the tractor was hypothecated to the Bank which does not give right to take forcible possession. Be that as it may, the petitioner does not press for adjudication on this issue. The petitioner submits that the loan is an agricultural loan. In terms of judgment of this Court in the case of Jagnath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar since reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 227, the Bank must recalculate the accounts. Bank is entitled to charge simple interest at contractual rate and nothing beyond that in the said case. This Court had issued directions in particular to the State Bank of India to revise all accounts of all agricultural loans. Petitioner states that it has not been done. Petitioner further states that he is ready to compromise the said dues. - 3 - In my view, the stand of the petitioner though coming very late can not be rejected. Having considered the whole matter, I direct that first the State Bank of India would re-compute the accounts as directed by this Court in the judgment referred to above. Having done so, considering the latest Reserve Bank of India guidelines including relieving agricultural indebtedness it would then quantify the amount at which the Bank would enter into a compromise and compound the liability. This would be communicated to the petitioner within one month of filing the copy of this order before the Manager of the concerned branch. The amount so being quantified, Bank would then give six months time to petitioner to deposit the entire amount. For this the petitioner would have to give an undertaking on affidavit to the Bank in that regards. On the said undertaking being filed, Bank on proper scrutiny of identification would release the tractor to the petitioner. If petitioner defaults in liquidating the dues within six months of the communication as aforesaid the Bank would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if no order had been passed by this Court. This disposes of the writ petition. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)