IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13745 of 2008 BIPIN BIHARI SINHA, S/o-Late-Warsingh Narayan Shrivastav, resident of Mohalla-Jagdishpuri, P.S.-Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Recovery Officer,Debt Recovery Tribunal, East Boring Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Union Bank of India, Calcutta. 3. The D.G.M., Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Patna. 4. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Muzaffarpur. ……..Respondents. With CWJC No.13895 of 2008 SUMITRA KAPOOR, W/o-Late Kishan Lal Kapoor, resident of Mohalla- Jagdishpuri, P.S.-Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. Recovery Officer,Debt Recovery Tribunal, East Boring Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Union Bank of India, Calcutta. 3. The D.G.M., Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Patna. 4. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Muzaffarpur. …….Respondents. ----------- 04. 22.04.2009 This case clearly demonstrates how settlement policies issued by the Reserve Bank Of India are obeyed more in breach then in compliance. Petitioner is one of the partners of M/s Sangam Medicine Agency which has taken financial assistance from the Union Bank of India, Muzaffarpur. It had defaulted in honouring its financial commitment which led to the Bank instituting mortgage suit for foreclosure. On Recovery of Debt Due to Financial Institutions Act coming into force, the suit was 2 transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bihar, Patna and decreed. Before the matter could be put for effective execution, pursuant to Reserve Bank of India guidelines Bank agreed to compromise and compound the dues. Petitioner accepted the same and started paying thereunder. Having paid the Principal, petitioner sought for time to deposit the total accrued interest on the compromise amount. That was not granted and steps were then taken to enforce the decree. This brought the petitioner to this Court. Before this Court a counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Bank stating therein that new settlement policy had come into effect from 01.08.2008 and petitioner is now required to make fresh application and reinitiate the proceedings towards a fresh compromise. Notwithstanding this new settlement policy being there and notwithstanding pendency of this writ petition, Bank suddenly started proceedings to put petitioner’s mortgaged properties to auction. This Court found such a step prima facie arbitrary. This Court thus directed the Bank that instead of asking the petitioner first to come and negotiate with the Bank and its Officers and then strike a deal, Bank itself should make an offer straight away 3 to the petitioner at which amount it could now compromise the matter. This Court so directed because if it was ultimately the discretion of the Bank then why should there be the long drawn process. This Court then directed the Bank to make a direct offer to the petitioner and the recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was stayed. Unfortunately I have to note that when the matter was to come up for Admission before this Court, the respective Branch Manager little realized the consequence of earlier order of this Court again harped about the old dues. But better sense prevails over Deputy General Manager of the Nodal Regional Office of the Bank at Patna. This clearly shows how irresponsibly Bank Manager at Branch level work. Today learned counsel for the Bank has very fairly produced a copy of letter dated 17.01.2009 of the Deputy General Manager, Nodal Regional Office of the Union Bank Of India from Patna wherein it has clearly been stated that petitioner is now required to deposit only Rs. 1,35,000/- on or before 28.02.2009. It is this spirit that was earlier lacking at Branch level. Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and copy thereof has been served on the learned counsel for the Bank that clearly shows that the last installment of Rs. 4 1,35,000/- was deposited on 25.02.2009. That being so, the consequence is that the entire dues of the petitioner stands fully satisfied and the Account of the Union Bank Of India, Main Branch, Muzaffarpur of M/s- Sangam Medicine Agency stands settled. Bank would now be obliged to return all security documents of the petitoner within one month from today. The proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal also would stands closed on satisfaction. Before partying, I would once again like to point out that if the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch had done what was required to be done at the very first instance, it would not only have saved lot of time of this Court, lot of time of the higher Officers of the Bank but it would have solved the problem without litigation and saved the petitioner from all the hassels and expenses. With these observations and directions, both the writ applications stand disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)