IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3422 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.9.2011 M/s A.G. Foods Limited …..petitioner vs. The Dena Bank and ors …..respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: - Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Katiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. HEMANT GUPTA, J Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for claiming an issuance of a direction in respect of the proposed action of respondent No. 1 in putting to sale the petitioner’s debt to the third party. Petitioner has availed loan from IDBI Bank and Dena Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has settled its account with IDBI Bank but the amount is due to Dena Bank. It appears from the reading of the petition that there was settlement with Dena Bank on 12.12.2008 (Anneuxre P-7), whereby the petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs. 140 lacs but the said amount was not paid. Since, the amount was not paid, respondent No. 1 i.e. the Dena Bank filed a petition against the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh for recovery of the defaulted CWP No. 3422 of 2011 amount, which is still pending for consideration. It is thereafter the petitioner is said to have made another request for one time settlement to which the Dena Bank responded to improve its offer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner learnt from the reliable sources that Dena Bank is intending to transfer the debts and liabilities of the petitioner to the third party for Rs. 65.00 lacs. The petitioner has alleged that he is willing to pay 20% extra amount offered by any private company with regard to the sale of the debt amount. When the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 25.2.2011, the petitioner made a statement that he is ready to deposit 25% more than the amount of Rs. 65.00 lacs and has undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs. 25.00 lacs by way of a bank draft to show his bonafide. The Bank in its reply has pointed out that the petitioner is in huge default and it wanted to avoid the payment of interest and that the Bank has till date not decided to sell the loan account of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not adhere to the settlement reached between the petitioner and that the Bank has not at all taken any decision with regard to selling of debt of the petitioner to some private company. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the present writ petition is the abuse of the process of law. The statement made before this Court at the time of 2 CWP No. 3422 of 2011 motion hearing, was as if the Bank is selling the assets and liabilities of the petitioner. In fact, the reading of the petition and the arguments now raised show that the grievance is in respect of assignment of debt by the Bank. The borrower has no interest in the assignment of debts by a secured creditor. It is independent transaction between the lender and the third person who is willing to take over the debts. Not only the Bank has not entered into any such transaction but even if such transaction is finalized, the petitioner will not have any right to dispute the assignment of debt. The petitioner as a borrower is bound by the terms of the contract executed by the petitioner with the Bank. In view of the said fact, we do not find any intervention, at the instance of the petitioner, in respect of assignment of debt, is warranted. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 8.9.2011 preeti 3