IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.119 of 2010 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA through its Deputy Manager, Zonal Office J C Road, Patna 2. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. Chief Manager-cum-Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Narayan House, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna – 800001 …Respondents-Appellants Versus 1. M/S PATLIPUTRA INDUSTRIES LTD.COMPANY, a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its place of business at Deedarganj, PS Deedarganj, Patna City, Town and District Patna, through its Director Shri Ravindra Prasaad, S/o Late Ram Prasad Sah, resident of Nawab Bahadur Road, PS Khajekala, Patna City, town and District – Patna 2. The State of Bihar through Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna… Proforma Respondent ….Respondents ----------- 02- 19/1/2011 The instant appeal has been preferred by State Bank of India under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raising a grievance against the order dated 16.12.2009, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in MJC No.1892 of 2009, whereby he clarified/modified his earlier order dated 25.7.2009, passed in MJC No.1892 of 2002, on two aspects. 2. On 11.12.2008, respondent no.1 filed CWJC No. 4026 of 2007, for setting aside the notice issued by the Bank under section 13(2) of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act). The 2 petitioner also sought direction to the respondent authorities not to proceed under the SARFAESI Act for realization of dues. The learned single Judge vide order dated 11.12.2008, observed that the writ petitioner would liquidate its dues by 30.7.2009. This Court also observed that the petitioner would be liable to pay simple interest at ELR from 1.12.2006 on the balance debt upto final liquidation by 30.7.2009. The petitioner filed MJC No.1892 of 2009 for extending the time schedule for liquidating the dues which had largely occurred on account of non-compliance and lackadaisical attitude of the respondents. The learned single Judge by order dated 25.7.2009 found it expedient to extend the time limit for liquidating the dues upto 30th November 2009. The learned single Judge noticed that substantial subsidy amount of over Rs.40 lacs was due to the petitioner which was to be paid by the Ministry of Food Processing. This Court observed that as the petitioner had already received 11 sale deeds of mortgaged properties, it would sell the same and the sale proceeds would flow directly to the Bank concerned. This Court also observed that the respondent Bank has been appointed as operating agency in rehabilitation proceeding before the BIFR and would make 3 financial sacrifices as thought proper under the guidance of the BIFR. 3. The writ petitioner thereafter filed an application for modification/clarification of the order dated 25.7.2009. The petitioner sought two clarifications. The petitioner stated that BIFR is not directing the Bank to waive interest as a matter of rehabilitation on the plea that the same would be contrary to the order of this Court. The second grievance related to alleged delaying tactics of the Bank. The petitioner contended that it had already deposited Rs.3.60 crores out of NPA amount of Rs.4.08 crores. 4. The learned single Judge by order dated 16.12.2009 clarified that it had not restrained BIFR from guiding the Bank to waive interest, rather it had directed that Bank would make all financial sacrifices as thought proper under the guidance of BIFR. So far as the second grievance was concerned, the learned single Judge observed that had the Ministry of Food Processing, Govt. of India, granted subsidy in time, the unit would not have become sick. Now in order to rehabilitate the Unit, the Ministry must expedite disbursement of subsidy. The BIFR was also directed to consider making all sacrifices to rehabilitate the industry. 4 5. The respondent Bank filed the instant LPA against the impugned order dated 16.12.2009, passed in MJC No.1892 of 2009 modifying the earlier order dated 25.7.2009 passed in the same case. 6. The appellant Bank now has mainly limited its grievance to the second aspect where the writ petitioner has made allegations against it of adopting the delaying tactics against it. In course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that out of Rs.4,08,07,091.25p., a sum of Rs.4,05,68,598/- has already been paid, and as such only a sum of Rs.2,38,493/- remains to be paid. This Court finds that the learned single Judge had directed both BIFR and the Bank to make all possible sacrifices for rehabilitation of the industry, and directed the Ministry of Food Processing to disburse the subsidy expeditiously so that the industry would be able to pay back all the dues to the Bank expeditiously. We are of the considered view that the order of the learned single Judge is correct and does not need any interference. We are further of the view that the writ petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of subsidy at the same rate of interest, as it has paid on its loan amounts to the financial institutions. 5 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) ( S P Singh ) mrl