IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15313 of 2007 M/s Tulsi Packaging Industries Private Limited having its Registered Office at Opp. I.T.I. Hostel, Digha Ghat, through its Managing Director Sri Uday Shankar, S/o Sri Ram Ayodhya Prasad resident of Bans Kothi, Digha Ghat, District-Patna. ………. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State Bank of India athrough its Chairman/Managing Director, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai. 2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. 3. The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Recovery and Rehabilitation branch, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 4. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Boring Road Branch, Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna. ………… Respondents. ----------- Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Mrigank Mauli Mr. Vinay Mistry. Counsel for the Bank : Mr. Mukund Jee. ----------- 06 16.12.2008 This matter has been adjourned several times. Petitioner had come up against the action of the respondent-Bank in terms of Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act). Petitioner had shown his earnest before this Court to liquidate the debts which this Court had noticed on earlier orders passed. In the last order dated 10.12.2008 entire schedule of payment was also given, which prima facie this court found to be just and equitable. The matter was adjourned for the learned counsel for the Bank to take instructions in the matter and once again the same prayer is made. Bank wants the petitioner to approach the Bank for a settlement. This Court wonders that when settlement conditions have been recorded by the Court more than once and also recorded that it appeared to be just and equitable, still the Bank is insisting on the petitioner approaching the Bank for a settlement. It does not take stand - 2 - either rejecting terms of settlement as recorded or accepting it. What is even more curious is, what Bank wants is also not being disclosed to the Court. In spite of repeated adjournments, regrettably this leads to Court to believe that there is something which prima facie the Bank wants, which it knows would not stand to judicial scrutiny. Keeping in view the earnest shown by the petitioner to liquidate the debts along with interest and considering the objection of the learned counsel for the Bank that the interest payable should be with effect from 01.04.2006 and not from 29.06.2006, as the debt of effectiveness compromise was in fact from 01.04.2006, though communicated on 29.06.2006. Considering the aforesaid, I direct as under :- As negotiated and settled between the parties, the dues would be deemed to be settled by negotiation for an amount of Rs. 3,30,960/- as on 01.04.2006. Petitioner has by July 2007 paid in instalments Rs. 13 lacs. Petitioner would liquidate this compromise amount with simple interest at PLR from 01.04.2006 and all payments made by the petitioner from time to time would be adjusted as on the date when paid. Petitioner would clear all the dues as calculated aforesaid including accrued interest, as noted above by 31st of March 2009. He would deposit out of the total liability an amount of Rs. 7.5 lacs by 31st of December 2008. The deposit in January 2009 would not be less than Rs. 5 lacs and similarly in February 2009 it would not be less than Rs. 5 lacs and as noted above along with balance interest the entire dues would be cleared by 31st of March, 2009. On 1st of March - 3 - 2009, the Bank would intimate in writing to the petitioner the balance of liability that he has to meet in the month of March 2009, so that there is no confusion amongst the parties. On punctual and timely payments as per this order Bank’s dues would be totally written off by 31st of March 2009 and Bank would not be then competent to pursue the matter under SARFESI Act. But, failure on part of petitioner to adhere to the aforesaid would automatically amount withdrawal of this settlement order and Bank would be free to proceed as per SARFESI Act. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the Bank. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)