IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.344 of 2011 SMT.ANITA GUPTA, W/O DHARAMNATH GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF D.P. GUPTA & SONS, R/O PURANI CHOWK, KANTI, P.O. & P.S. KANTI, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR.............................PETITIONER Versus 1. UCO BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 10, BIPLABI TRAILOKYA, MAHARAJ SARANI (BRABOURN ROAD), KOLKATA-700001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CUM CHIEF OFFICER, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK ‘A’, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, NEW DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA- 800001. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, UCO BANK, MUZAFFARPUR BRANCH, JAWAHARLAL ROAD, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents United Commercial Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent Bank to give effect to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure-9) under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) in S.A. No.50 of 2008 and also for directing the respondent Bank to declare the amount of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in terms of Reserve Bank of India Circular No. DBOD No.BP.BC/1/21.01.048/2002-03 dated 04.07.2002 containing 2 RBI’s Prudential Norms on Income Recognition Assets Classification and Provisioning pertaining to advances and for further directing the respondent Bank to follow the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in paragraph-37 of decision in case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 311 as well as for directing the respondent Bank to redeem the properties mortgaged by the petitioner with the respondent Bank on payment of amount referred to by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in the aforesaid order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure-9) passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal it is quite apparent that the parties wanted to settle the matter through compromise and hence the petitioner was directed to submit a compromise proposal before Bank within seven days from that date. The Bank was directed to act upon the compromise proposal of borrower within fifteen days thereafter. It was made clear that Bank would take Rs.50,000.00 more on NPA. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the authorities wrongly calculated the NPA amount to be Rs.13.06 lacs out of which some amount was paid by the petitioner, whereafter the amount remained was Rs.12.54 lacs which according to the respondent was to be paid along with an extra amount of Rs.50,000.00 totalling Rs.13.04 lacs. He further submits that in these circumstances he filed an application before 3 the Tribunal raising the dispute as according to the petitioner, the respondent Bank had not calculated the NPA amount as per the circular of Reserve Bank of India, but the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not heeding to the genuine request of the petitioner and hence this wit petition had to be filed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure-9) was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the basis of oral compromise arrived at between the parties according to which a compromise proposal was to be filed by the petitioner within seven days from the date of the order, which the petitioner did not comply and filed a compromise proposal much beyond that time on 31.12.2009 (Annexure-10) mentioning the NPA amount as per the petitioner’s calculation to which the respondent Bank replied on 05.01.2010 (Annexure-D) directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13.04 lacs within four days. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also avers that since the aforesaid direction was not complied, the Bank published sale notice under section 13(4) of the Act on 10.10.2010 (Annexure-F) and sent it by registered post to the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the Debt Recovery Tribunal was approached and vide order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure-G) it fixed 26.11.2010 permitting the parties to place their calculations of loan account. However, an 4 order was passed on 26.11.2010 (Annexure-H) directing the petitioner to pay Rs.4 lacs by 15th December 2010 and the remaining amount by end of March, 2011 in equal monthly installments and if payment of any two consecutive installment payment failed, the entire compromise would be failed. It is also stated that the petitioner did not comply the said order which was passed on the basis of compromise and filed this writ petition on 06.01.2011 which is absolutely frivolous and misconceived. 7. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the materials on record it is quite apparent that the only question in dispute between the parties is fixation of NPA amount as per the circular of Reserve Bank of India. Order dated 16.11.2009 (Anneuxre-9) was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act deciding the appeal, but the said order did not disclose the amount of NPA and it was only directed that NPA amount plus Rs.50,000.00 was to be paid by the petitioner and for that a compromise proposal was to be filed within seven days. Since the said order was passed in presence of learned counsel for both the parties it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to comply the said order and file the proposal of compromise within seven days, but the petitioner filed it after more than a month taking the plea that copy of order dated 16.11.2009 was not made available to her. 8. However, the amount of NPA calculated by the petitioner in her said compromise proposal was not agreeable to 5 the respondent Bank as the respondent Bank claimed that it was not in accordance with the circular of Reserve Bank of India and hence a reply to that effect was sent by the respondent Bank to the petitioner on 05.01.2010 (Annexure-D) directing her to pay Rs.13.04 lacs within four days and when the said amount was not paid within the said period, sale notice (Annexure-F) was issued on 10.10.2010 a copy of which was also sent to the petitioner by registered post. 9. It transpires that thereafter an application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and on 18.11.2010 (Annexure-G) the Tribunal fixed 26.11.2010 to enable both the parties to place their calculations of loan account. It also appears that on 26.11.2010 (Annexure-H) the Tribunal considered the matter and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.9.64 lacs by the end of March, 2011 in four installments. This writ petition has been filed on 06.01.2011 but the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-H) passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in M.A. No.47 of 2010 has not been challenged. 10. From the entire facts and circumstances mentioned above it is quite apparent that since a final order has been passed by the Tribunal which according to the petitioner is not in accordance with the circular of Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal under section 18 of the Act before the appellate Tribunal which also has the authority to decide the main question in issue, namely the fixation 6 of NPA amount as per the circular of Reserve Bank of India. Hence, this court does not feel it desirable to decide this writ petition because an appropriate alternative forum is available to the petitioner and some facts are also disputed which can be well decided by the said appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)