1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1636/2005 (M/s M.S. Industries Ltd. V/s RFC & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 25.10.2007. HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. S.P. Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the respondents. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the RFC claiming the following reliefs :- “(a)- By an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction of the Hon'ble Court, the impugned demand notice dated 03.02.2005 (Annexure-1), issued by respondent no.3 may kindly be declared unsustainable and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b)- By an appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent Corporation may very kindly be directed to settle the account of the petitioner according to the followings; (i)The rate of interest be charged by the respondent corporation on the outstanding principle loan amount of petitioner, by charging simple rate of interest as per the rate prescribed by the SIDBI/IDBI. (ii) The, the upfront amount of Rs.71,400/- deposited by the petitioner be adjusted in petitioner's account with interest, against outstanding loan amount. (iii) The interest so charged on the subsidy granted to the petitioner be directed to be 2/4 reduced by the respondent corporation from petitioner, while setting the account. (iv)The, simple rate of interest be calculated to the favour of petitioner on the total deposits made by the petitioner in his loan account. (c)- That any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. According to the learned counsel for the RFC, this petition is not maintainable as it is a contractual matter. He submits that the petitioner has not complied with the terms of the settlement done at his instance as communicated to him vide decision dated 3.2.2005 (Annex.-1). The terms of the settlement communicated to the petitioner are as below : “1.The a/c shall be settled by charging simple documented rate of interest as on 29.7.04 but upfront amount deposited for SLC shall not be accounted for while calculating simple rate. 2. The amount shall be paid by the concern up to 31.5.05. 3. No instalment shall be charged for the first three months w.e.f. 30.7.04. 4. After three months, intt. @ 13% P.A. shall be payable by the party.” 4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-RFC has not firstly communicated 3/4 the decision of the CMD dated 28.8.2004 and the Branch Manager is trying to misread and misinterpret the said decision of the CMD and RFC has not communicated the final amount to be paid by the petitioner in pursuance of these terms of settlement. 5. Though strictly speaking, such matters do not deserve to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it necessarily involves disputed questions of facts. However, in view of the facts of this case where the petitioner had approached the respondent RFC for settlement of his dues and the respondent having considered its case, had given some relaxation in the rate of interest etc. to the petitioner, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is considered just and proper to dispose of this petition with the following directions :- 1- That the petitioner shall make payment of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of six weeks from today to the respondent RFC and the petitioner will remain present before the respondent No.2 Senior Manager (FR), RFC on 3.12.2007; 2- The respondent RFC is directed to compute the exact amount now payable in terms of the afore-quoted terms of settlement communicated to the petitioner on 3.2.2005 4/4 and inform the petitioner in writing; 3- The petitioner is directed to clear such dues of balance amount within a period of six months from the date of communication of such amount by the respondent RFC; 4- If petitioner makes any representation on or before 3.12.2007 raising certain points to be considered by the respondent RFC like charging of interest on subsidy amount etc., the same shall be decided by the respondent RFC by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of such representation. The petitioner would not be entitled to raise any such decision by RFC, as a ground for non-compliance of direction No.(1) and (3) aforesaid. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within six weeks from today and later on the balance amount within six months as directed above, this writ petition shall be treated as dismissed and the respondent RFC will be free to ignore the settlement terms and proceed further in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Dr VINEET KOTHARI)J. Gandhi/ ITEM NO.4.