IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1445 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 2186 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Srinivasa Rice Mill, Mangamuru Rep. by Sole Proprietor Abburi Narasaiah R/o. Mangamuru S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Ongole Branch Ongole Prakasam District 2 The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Corporation Bank Manguluru Karnataka 3 Reserve Bank of India Rep. by Chief General Manager-in-Charge, Central Office World Trade Centre Bombay 400 005 .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1445 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) The order dated 08.07.2002 in Writ Petition No.2186 of 2001 is under challenge. The appellant/petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,63,000/- from the Corporation Bank, Ongole, for construction of a Rice Mill. Admittedly, there was a default in the repayment of the loan, which constrained the Bank to file a suit in O.S.No.11 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole, for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,75,327.40 ps. A preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 01.10.1992. The trial Court granted interest at six per cent per annum on the amount held recoverable from the date of presentation of the suit. The Bank, being aggrieved by the rate of interest awarded by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1817 of 1993 which is stated to have been allowed in part. The Reserve Bank of India issued Circular dated 27.07.2000 for recovery of loans by Banks from non-performing assets by way of a One Time Settlement. The petitioner made a representation on 16.10.2000 seeking the benefit of the same. However, the Bank rejected this request on the ground that the petitioner was classified as a wilful defaulter and was therefore, ineligible to seek the benefits of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines under it’s Circular dated 27.07.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2186 of 2001. The learned Judge, upon considering the relevant guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, came to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner was a wilful defaulter, which had constrained the Bank to file a suit for recovery of the amounts due. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the final decree had been passed in the suit and the Bank had also filed execution proceedings in E.P.No.67 of 1998. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the appellant/petitioner was not covered by the Reserve Bank of India scheme and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, contended that his client had, in all, paid a sum of Rs.5,93,492/- and cannot be categorized as a wilful defaulter and therefore, submitted that the benefit of the Reserve Bank of India scheme permitting a One Time Settlement should be extended to his client. It is however, to be noticed that the appellant/petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs under the interim orders granted by this Court staying further coercive proceedings by the Bank. The facts on record establish that the Bank was constrained to file a suit for recovery of the loan amounts due from the appellant/petitioner and the proceedings in the said suit progressed upto the stage of execution. It is therefore difficult to hold that the petitioner is not a wilful defaulter. Reliance placed by the learned counsel upon the Reserve Bank of India guidelines in respect of the enumeration of a wilful defaulter shows that the same is only inclusive as is indicated by the use of the words ‘wilful default will broadly cover the following’. Therefore, the instances enumerated under the clauses (a) to (f) are not exhaustive and it is not open to the appellant/petitioner to contend that he is not a wilful defaulter as he does not fall within any of the clauses enumerated. The appellant/petitioner cannot therefore seek the benefit of the Reserve Bank of India scheme of One Time Settlement in the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8th September, 2009. VGSR / PGS