IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.114 of 2009 SHRI ADITYA JALAN. S/O SHRI BAL MANOHAR JALAN, R/O HIRA PLACE, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, PATNA. -PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, NEW DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHANDRAMUKHI, 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-RESPONDENTS 2 17.02.2009 Writ petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC no. 12211 of 2006 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner-appellant contended that his case falls within one time settlement scheme introduced by the Reserve Bank of India by Circular dated 29th January, 2003. The learned single Judge has found that writ petitioner- appellant was given over draft limit of Rs.2.75 lacs in the year 1995 whereas the drawing power was to the extent of Rs. 2.37 lacs. The said account became irregular and the writ petitioner-appellant was informed accordingly by the Bank in the month of June, 1995 itself. The account remained 2 irregular over a period of 4-5 years. According to the learned single Judge no honest intention was ever made by the writ petitioner to reconcile the account from 1995. Accordingly, the learned single Judge declined to grant the relief. While doing so it observed as follows: ”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 willful default on the part of the petitioner and even according to January 29, 2003 circular contained in Annexure-4, such cases cannot 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 submission 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 matter 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.” We do not find any error in the same. The 3 appeal stands dismissed in limine. (C.K. Prasad, ACJ.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.) AAhmad