C.W.P No. 10675 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10675 of 2008 Date of decision : September 24, 2008 Sukhbir Singh Brar, ...... Petitioner v. Punjab Financial Corporation ...... Respondent through Mr.G.S.Gill, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 8.5.2008 whereby the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay in making the deposit under one time settlement scheme was rejected. The petitioner's concern was taken over under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Ultimately by letter dated 27.6.2006, the respondent informed the petitioner that the tentative settlement amount for his unit was worked at Rs.38.47 lacs under the restoration scheme. Vide letter dated 22.8.2006, this tentative proposal was finalized at Rs.40 lacs along with future interest at 12.1/2 per annum w.e.f 1.7.2006 (with penal provision of 2% over and above normal rate for delayed payments) payable in six quarterly instalments w.e.f 15.10.2006, C.W.P No. 10675 of 2008 ::2:: out of which a sum of Rs.10 lacs was acknowledged as having been received. It is not disputed that the petitioner paid the entire amount due. However, the last payment of Rs.1,22,225/- was made on 28.1.2008 i.e with a delay of 13 days. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.797/- was also paid on 20.2.2008 on account of interest. The petitioner claims that this delay of 13 days deserves to be condoned. As per the respondent, the petitioner not having adhered to repayment schedule of the concessional one time settlement, is not entitled for the said relief. The stand of the Corporation further is that there was a definite schedule for repayment and there have been constant delays by the petitioner of a few days on many occasions. Further, even the amounts paid by the petitioner were not as per the schedule and for this reason also the petitioner is not entitled for condonation of delay. In our opinion, this petition deserves to succeed. The reasons behind framing various one time settlement schemes are that firstly huge amounts of public money of banks and financial institutions which are locked up as non-performing assets should be recovered, and secondly relief should be granted to loanees so that they can settle long pending disputes and their assets be put to productive use. Apart from this, it is not disputed that repayment schedule was fixed between 1.7.2006 and 15.1.2008. It could have been one thing if the respondent had cancelled the benefit of OTS on the first delay. Having not only not done so the Corporation further accepted various payments on account of interest and penal interest. In our view having condoned the first act of delay by the petitioner which incidentally was also of 13 days, the Corporation could be said to have C.W.P No. 10675 of 2008 ::3:: caused a reasonable expectation in the mind of the petitioner that such delay would be condoned. In the result, this petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to condone the delay in making the deposit under one time settlement scheme. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 24, 2008 'kk'