IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14268 of 2010 M/S SHYAM BIHARI, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PRABHAT NAGAR, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, TOWN & DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI SHYAM BIHARI, S/O SHRI MAHENDRA NARAYAN CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PRABBHAT NAGAR, BHAGWANPUR, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFAR………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE SYNDICATE BANK, A BANKING COMPANY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL 576104, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, MUZAFFARPUR ……………….RESPONDENTS. ------------- 05/ 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-Syndicate Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to refrain from proceeding under section 13 (11) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and for also a direction to the respondents to consider ‘One Time Settlement’ proposal of the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the borrower and due to non-payment his assets were declared NPA (Non- Performing Assets), whereafter notice under section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner and subsequently notice under section 13(4) of the Act was also issued against the petitioner in the year 2010 but thereafter no step was taken by the respondents in that regard. - 2 - 4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier applied for ‘One Time Settlement’ as per the scheme of the Bank and as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, but when no step was taken in that regard by the respondent authorities the petitioner moved this court vide C.W.J.C. No.4120 of 2010 which was considered by a Bench of this court and vide order dated 16.04.2010 (Annexure-2) it was disposed of with a direction to the Branch Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Bhagwanpur Branch to take cognizance of the petitioner’s offer of ‘One Time Settlement’ which had been brought on record with supplementary affidavit as well as such other application which the petitioner would like to make within two months from that day and he shall communicate his decision and the future course of action will be dependent upon such decision. 5. It transpires that the petitioner sent his application along with a copy of the aforesaid order of the High Court to the respondents authorities who passed their final order in that regard dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure-4) in which it was informed that the respondents cannot accept petitioner’s offer of Rs.2 crores 42 lacs without component of interest which was already informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.03.2010 which was received by the petitioner on 31.03.2010 but no improved offer was made by the petitioner. It was also held that section 9 of the Act was not applicable to the secured creditor (Bank) and it is meant for securitization company or reconstruction company only, hence the petitioner was requested to pay the outstanding dues to the Bank immediately failing - 3 - which the Bank shall proceed further in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order claiming that the said order is illegal and perverse as ‘One Time Settlement’ is applicable to the secured creditor of the Bank also and not only for securitization company or reconstruction company only, in view of decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s Sardar Associates and others vs. Punjab & Sind Bank and others, reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 257 in which it was held that the appellate authority can consider ‘One Time Settlement’ and other offers made by the borrower and deprecated the appellate authority being interested only in recovery of amount without considering the other aspects of the matter raised by the petitioner. 7. In the instant case already possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act has been issued by the respondent Bank to the petitioner and hence he has a proper and wide remedy under section 17 of the Act to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal raising all the points raised by him in the instant case including ‘One Time Settlement’ and other offers which the Appellate Authority is bound to consider in accordance with law. 8. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority under section 17 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed within 15 days from today along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the said authority shall consider the delay caused due to the - 4 - pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law keeping in view of the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, expeditiously. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)