Civil Writ Petition No. 668 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 668 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.02.2011 Dalip Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has an arrangement of cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.4.50 lacs with the respondent-Punjab National bank. The petitioner mortgaged his property i.e. Plot No.2 measuring 504 sq. yards situated at Prem Colony, Kaithal. He could not repay the loan amount and his loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA). The petitioner represented on 23.2.2005 for One Time Settlement (OTS). To show his bona fide, he deposited an amount of Rs.1.2 lacs with the respondent-Bank. The Bank accepted the request of the petitioner for One Time Settlement and the amount deposited by the petitioner was credited into its account. The total amount is reported as under:- Civil Writ Petition No. 668 of 2009 -2- Compromise amount Rs. 9,00,000/- Paid Rs. 5,70,000/- Balance 3,30,000/- + Interest Upto 15/4/07 Rs. 1,21,425/- Rs. 4,51,425/- + Interest w.e.f. 16.04.2007 The petitioner was required to pay the remaining amount as per the One Time Settlement schedule. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1.0 lacs on July 1, 2005, September 8, 2005 and September 28, 2005. Thereafter, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on December 29, 2006 and another sum of Rs.1.0 lacs on February 28, 2007. As per the petitioner, the Bank did not cancel the OTS arrangement despite the fact that he could not adhere to the time schedule agreed to by him. The respondent-Bank wrote a letter requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3.30 lacs along with interest of Rs.1,21,425/-. The petitioner made a representation for recalculating the amount by computing the interest not on the total sum of Rs.9.0 lacs but on the balance of the payment, which was due after payment of amount after One Time Settlement amount as agreed to. While the said representation was pending, the petitioner received a recovery certificate issued by Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chandigarh on 3.10.2008. The property of the petitioner was put to auction on 19.1.2009. The petitioner genuinely being interested in discharging the entire liability as per the arrangement, approached this Court and deposited a sum of Rs.5.50 lacs with the respondent- Bank to show his bonafide. The petitioner, accordingly, prays that Civil Writ Petition No. 668 of 2009 -3- the entire liability with interest has now been discharged and as such account now be settled accordingly. In response, the Bank would not dispute this factual position. But the counsel for the Bank, however, would point out that the Bank had cancelled the OTS arrangement as the petitioner could not adhere to time schedule as agreed to by him. In this connection, the respondent-Bank would point out to communication dated 11.7.2008, which was addressed to the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner would rely upon Annexure P-2 to urge that the OTS arrangement was continued even after the default. The only dispute, which remains to be resolved, is regarding the payment of the interest. Whether the interest is to be paid on the entire amount i.e. Rs.9 .0 lacs or only on the balanced amount at Rs.3.30 lacs is a question. The petitioner was unable to discharge the liability in terms of the One Time Settlement. Counsel for the Bank now states that the amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.8,94,509/- upto year 2009. Without looking into the justification of the stand taken by the Bank, I am of the view that once the Bank had agreed to settle the amount and had made an arrangement of One Time Settlement, this may have to be respected. The petitioner was not able to adhere to the time schedule as agreed with the Bank. Still the Bank cannot be expected to be harsh to the petitioner who appears sincere to comply with OTS Scheme. The Bank had also required the petitioner to deposit the amount even once he had defaulted after having faulted with the OTS arrangement. The petitioner was to an extent Civil Writ Petition No. 668 of 2009 -4- justified in objecting to the stand of the Bank in calculating the interest on the entire amount due instead of the remaining amount, which was to be paid as on 16.4.2007. The petitioner at that time could be expected to deposit at least the conceded amount to further show his bona fides. This may be an unwise move on his part for which, he has now paid even over and above the amount payable by 16.04.2007. The petitioner has suffered for this lapse and cannot be asked to further suffer in manner that it become too harsh. The amount, which the Bank had required him to pay as on 16.4.2007 was Rs.4,51,425/-. He has paid almost Rs. One lac more than the said amount. The failure of his part should not lead to fatal consequences holding him liable to pay to the tune of Rs. Nine lacs more, which was the sum earlier agreed to settle the full account. To me it would sound a bit unfair to ask the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. nine lacs more when the Bank had agreed to settle his account on payment of Rs. Nine lacs. The petitioner by now has paid Rs.11.90 lacs. In equity, the petitioner has discharged his liability and the Bank is not found to be suffering in any manner. It would not be fair to ask the petitioner to pay such a huge sum, which would sound rather unreasonable. Let the petitioner approach the Bank to secure confirmation that the liability shall stand discharged. The respondent-Bank may calculate the interest from the year 2007 i.e. the date when the amount of Rs.5.50 lacs was deposited and to see if some amount is still due. If it is so, the Bank may intimate it to the petitioner, who would undertake to discharge the same within the Civil Writ Petition No. 668 of 2009 -5- time bound period. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. February 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE