1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 5797/2010. M/s. National Cotton Waste Products and others. -VERSUS- State Bank of India and another. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 21, 2011. Heard Mrs. R.D. Raskar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri S.N. Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. Mrs. Raskar, learned Counsel states that suit filed for recovery of Rs. 1,06,87,021.80 with interest at 16.5% was compromised, and amount of Rs. 55 lacs was to be paid. That amount was to be arranged by selling the immovable properties mortgaged or otherwise of the petitioners. The respondent no.1 Bank did not permit sale of mortgaged 2 property or even other immovable property and hence that amount could not be paid completely. She points out that part of the amount has been paid. Our attention has also been invited to the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the D.R.A.T. to show that the petitioners were permitted to approach the Bank with a proposal to arrange money by seeking permission to execute agreement for sale in respect of the secured properties so that advance payment received on such agreement can be made over to the respondent no.1 Bank. The Bank has not responded to said order or any such request. It is further urged that the proposal for settlement is also submitted, but it is not being looked into. In this background, it is urged that application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver, has been erroneously considered and directions to deposit sum of Rs. 7 lacs has been issued. The learned Counsel urges that if properties or part thereof are disposed of, requisite funds can be generated, or that amount of Rs. 7 lacs 3 can be made over to meet the impugned order passed under Section 21. Shri Kumar, learned Counsel is opposing the petition. According to him all relevant aspects are looked into by the Chairperson of D.R.A.T., and hence this Court should not interfere. We have perused the order dated 28.10.2010 passed in M.A. No. 522/2008 by the D.R.A.T. All relevant aspects are looked into and thereafter the present petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 7 lacs on or before 15.12.2010. The compromise, the payment of Rs. 15,05,391.58 on 0.5.08.2005 by the petitioner and the outstanding amounts are all looked into. The petitioners disclosed to D.R.A.T. that sum of Rs. 26 lacs approximately was to be paid and they were seeking waiver in relation to the award passed by the D.R.T. The Bank did not accept the compromise, as according to it, it's terms and conditions were not complied with and was claiming the entire amount as decree i.e. Rs. 1,06,87,021.80 along with 16.5% interest. It is therefore, obvious that there is no 4 jurisdictional error or perversity. The D.R.A.T. while considering the application under Section 21, did not consider the entire decreetal amount, but has given weightage to amount of Rs. 55 lacs i.e. the compromise amount only. Hence, a small amount of Rs. 7 lacs was directed to be deposited. We, therefore, are not inclined to entertain the petition. Writ Petition is thus, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd