1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.733/2007 (Smt. Sohanidevi Lodha Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.) Date of order : December 19th, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Chanda, for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that she may be held entitled and eligible for One Time Settlement Scheme notified vide RBI circulars and the impugned letter dated 3.2.2006, 11.3.2006 and 22.7.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside and in alternative it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the enhanced proposal of Rs.6 lakhs of the petitioner under Ordinary Settlement Scheme towards full and final settlement of the overdues. The case of the petitioner is that for dues against the petitioner a civil suit was filed by the respondent Bank in which a decree for recovery of amount of Rs.6,61,550.89 paisa was passed by the 2 District Judge, Pali. As per the petitioner it has come to her knowledge that Reserve Bank of India issued One time Settlement Scheme of SME accounts, therefore, in pursuance of One Time Settlement Scheme a representation was made by the petitioner for settlement of her case but the respondent No.4 illegally and arbitrarily in breach of RBI guidelines rejected the representation filed by the petitioner on the ground that due to passing of decree against the petitioner, her case is not covered under the One Time Settlement Scheme. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are not granting benefits to the petitioner under the Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and illegally rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of benefits under the Scheme on the ground that in case of petitioner, decree was already passed by the Civil Court. As per the petitioner, she applied for benefit under the Scheme and along with application tendered a cheque of Rs.1,25,000, which is more than 25% of NP account balance but while rejecting the petitioner's representation, the respondents have returned the cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- and intimated that the petitioner can apply under the ordinary settlement scheme of the Bank by suitably enhancing the settlement amount. 3 In reply filed by the respondents, it is specifically stated that since the decree was passed against the petitioner by the civil Court, therefore, the provisions of one time settlement scheme were not applicable in case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that although the judgment/decree of Rs.6,61,550.89 paisa was passed by the District Judge, Pali, the petitioner is not making payment and claiming right under the Scheme which is not applicable for those persons in which there is willful default of payment is in existence. Learned counsel for the respondents while inviting attention of this Court towards para 3.4 of the guidelines of the RBI Circular dated 3.9.2005 submits that under the said scheme only those matters where suit filed/decreed accounts before DRT/Courts, consent decree shall be obtained for the claim/suit amount along with cost and pendente-lite and future interest as claimed in the plaint, with the stipulation that if the opposite party/respondent repay settlement amount with or without interest as agreed under the settlement approved by the competent authority, the entire debt shall be deemed to have been satisfied. Meaning thereby, as per the respondents there is provision for consent decree before the Court whether dispute is pending, 4 therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected on the ground that the petitioner's case is not covered under the one time settlement scheme. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record of the case, it emerges from the facts that civil suit was decreed against the petitioner by the District Judge, Pali vide its judgment dated 12.12.2002. In the year 2004, subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid judgment, the Reserve Bank of India issued One Time Settlement Scheme of SME accounts in which the petitioner applied for One Time Settlement. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-2 on the ground that the petitioner's case is not covered under the said scheme. After perusing Annexure-3 – One Time Settlement Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India for SME accounts, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is obviously not covered under the said scheme, which is subsequently issued by the Reserve Bank of India after passing of judgment and decree by the District Court, Pali in the civil suit filed by the respondent Bank. Admittedly, the petitioner after passing the judgment and decree against her by the District Court did not deposit the decreed amount and now she is claiming her rights under the One Time Settlement Scheme, which is issued subsequently by the 5 Reserve Bank of India. In the said Scheme there is no such provision for granting any exemption in those matter which were already settled by the civil Courts prior to issuing of the One Time Settlement Scheme by the Reserve Bank of India although there is provision under the Head of 'other terms & conditions' in para 3.4. that in the pending proceedings consent decree may be obtained. Therefore, in my opinion, the rejection of the petitioner's claim is justified and does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. arun