IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12211 of 2006 SHRI ADITYA JALAN, son of Shri Bal Manohar Jalan, Resident of Hira Place, Dak Bunglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District – Patna ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna having its registered office at Chadramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 2. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Maurya Complex, B-Block, Second Floor, Patna. 3. Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800 001. --------------------------- Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. Mrigank Mauli and Vinay Mistry. For the Bank: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha. ----------- 02. 16.01.2009 In his individual capacity petitioner was given a over-draft limit of Rs.2.75 Lacs some time in the year 1995. The drawing power was to the extent of Rs.2.37 Lacs. Petitioner had pledged certain shares with the bank as security but the value of those shares kept fluctuating due to rise and fall in the share market.. This, according to the petitioner, was one of the reasons why the drawing power was changed from time to time by the bank. The account became irregular for which the petitioner received a letter from the bank in the month of June, 1995 itself. There are reflections to show that the account remained irregular over a period of 4-5 years. Petitioner made a grievance that one of the reasons why the account was irregular because the petitioner had been charged wrong rate of interest which inflated the figures. Be that as it may, the records of the present writ application reflect that the account was irregular and the petitioner wanted to settle the dispute by taking - 2 - advantage of the so-called one time settlement scheme formulated by the Reserve Bank of India in relation to non performing asset cases. For the first time in the year 2004, based on the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India petitioner made certain offers to the bank for one time settlement of the outstanding dues but the same have been refused or rejected by the respondent bank leading to filing of the present case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the bank has not honestly implemented the circulars relating to settlement of such defaults. In fact, a detailed guideline, contained in annexure-4, has been issued on Ist July, 2008 which lays down the procedure the banks are supposed to adopt in matters of drawing up a list of wilful defaulters. Attention of the Court has been drawn to paragraph 2.2.2 in support of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on Clause-3 with regard to the grievance redressal mechanism. It is contended that since the circulars have certain statutory binding upon the banks, failure on the part of the bank will go to the root of the matter. Learned counsel, however, representing the respondent Central Bank of India submits that the over draft limit was sanctioned in the year 1995. The account became irregular in the same year and there was never an honest intention on the part of the borrower to reconcile the account from 1995 till the year 2004. In fact, there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner and even according to January 29, 2003 circular contained in annexure-4, such cases cannot - 3 - be entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent bank further submits that the matter has been considered by the bank with due objectivity and keeping the guidelines and capacity of the borrower to pay, the bank has rejected his offer for one time settlement. After examining the submissions made on behalf either sides as well as the basic facts which have been pleaded in the writ application the court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in the mater specially when there are no adequate explanations coming forth from the petitioner with regard to prolonged period when the account has remained irregular which is almost 10 years. It is only after a circular came into existence that he started making correspondences with the bank to settle the dispute by making a lump sum offer as a settlement of the account. Further since there are alternative statutory remedies which provide the forum for going into the dispute of such accounts and other details it will be in the interest of justice to allow the dispute to be either settled between the parties by a fresh negotiation, if the offer of the petitioner is bonafide or he may take recourse to defend his interest before such other forum as may be advised to him. The writ application stands dismissed with the above liberty. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi J)