IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16553 of 2008 - --- 1. M/S BRESTO PHARMACEUTICALS , Govind Mitra Road, Patna-4 through its partner- Bibhuti Nath Sinha. 2.Bibhuti Nath Sinha son of late Indradeo Narayan Singh, resident of D 110, P.C. Colony,Kankaragh. Versus 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK , Kankaragh Branch,Patna, through its Chief Manager. 2. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank,Birchand Patel Patha, P.S.Kotwali,District-Patna. 3. Shri A.R.K. Prasad,Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Special Assets Recovery cell, Budha Colony,Patna. 4. Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Special Assets Recovery cell, Budha Colony,Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : MR. N.K.Agrawal,Sr.Adv. and M/s Rakesh Kumar,Rajkihsore Prasad and Krishnkant Singh. For the Bank : Mr.Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh-1 and Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava. - - --- 7 17.2.2009 Counter affidavit and rejoinder have been filed and with the consent of the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. In 1994, petitioner was sanctioned cash credit facility by the respondent- Punjab National Bank upto Rs. 10 lakhs. Petitioner was a small scale Drug and Medicine manufacturer. Due to various reasons, with which we are not concerned prevailing at that time in Bihar, the unit suffered and defaulted in meeting its financial obligation. On 31.03.2001 petitioner’s account was declared NPA with a balance outstanding of about Rs. 28 lakhs. In May, the same very year, the matter was compromised between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank for an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs payable by the petitioner within three months. Petitioner defaulted in payment but it 2 is not disputed that by October, 2003 he had paid about Rs. 17 lakhs towards the settlement. On 6th May, 2004, petitioner was informed that unless full payment, as per settlement, was immediately made, Bank was contemplating to cancel the settlement. Petitioner finding itself in a difficult position even to pay the balance amount of about Rs. 5.45 lakhs moved before the permanent Lok Adalat where Bank refused to participate questioning the very maintainability of the application there. Ultimately, on 22.1.2008, petitioner alleges that Bank had made an offer to the petitioner that if they pay Rs. 5.45 lakhs immediately, then Bank would consider waiving of interest. Petitioner, thereafter, in the next four months, has paid about Rs. 5.17 lakhs and ultimately in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002, the assets of the petitioner have been taken over by the respondent-Bank for satisfaction of its due on 12.11.2008. When this matter was taken up first by this Court, this Court impressed upon the Bank to settle the matter, as it was evident from the conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner was indebted from time to time in making onerous and bonafide efforts to get out of the debt but obviously because of severe financial constraint, could not fulfill its own desire and always small amounts were left unpaid towards the end. Bank has at last agreed and in the supplementary counter affidavit made known its offer .It wants petitioner to pay about Rs. 13.47 lakhs in full and final settlement of the due. In my view equity would be settled if petitioner is made liable to pay the 3 balance amount of settlement along with interest for the delayed payment therein. Accordingly, the settlement amount being Rs. 22 lakhs in the month of May, 2001, which the petitioner was required to pay within three months, as such, from 1st September, 2001, petitioner would be charged simple interest at the contractual rate of 12 ½% on balance of the said settlement amount giving due credit to the amounts paid from time to time and the settlement amount would be the amount thus arrived at as on 1st February, 2009. This amount, the petitioner would deposit by 30th August, 2009, out of which petitioner must deposit Rs. 2 lakhs by 31st of March 2009. Bank would also be entitled to interest, up to liquidation of compromised loan, on rates as indicated above. In case the petitioner fails to deposit this amount or any part thereof, the Bank would be free to proceed in accordance with law as if no order had been passed by this Court in the matter. On payment being made, accordingly the assets which have been taken over by the Bank, should be released. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)