IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 1892 of 2009 M/S Patliputra Industries Limited, a company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its place of business at Deedarganj, P S – Deedarganj, Patna City, Town and District – Patna through its Director, Ravindra Prasad, son of late Ram Prasad Sah, resident of Nawab Bahadur Road, P S – Khajekala, Patna City, Town and District – Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State Bank of India through its Deputy Manager, Zonal Office, J C Road, Patna – 1 2 The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3 The Chief Manager –cum- Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Narain House, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna – 1 4 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondents ----------- 4 16.12.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought this case under the heading For Orders for modification/clarification of order dated 25.07.2009 passed in this case. He needs two clarifications. Firstly, in regard to proceedings before Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR), he submits that in the order of this Court, it has been stated that petitioner would liquidate the entire dues that is the NPA amount + interest. BIFR is not directing Bank to waive interest as a matter of rehabilitation on the plea that that would be contrary to orders of this Court. In this regard, it may be clarified that this Court, in the said order dated 25.07.2009 itself, had noted that matter of rehabilitation of industry is before the BIFR and respondent-Bank had been appointed the operating agency with regard to rehabilitation of the industry including making financial sacrifices as thought appropriate under guidance of BIFR. This observation of this 2 Court was not without meaning. The liability to pay interest or other amounts would be there if they are not sacrificed. It is the duty of BIFR to pursue the Bank to make sacrifices otherwise the role of BIFR is redundant. There cannot be any rehabilitation. That was the spirit of the order and BIFR would proceed accordingly. The second grievance of the petitioner is that at every stage, Bank is delaying the matter. First, with regard to the 11 sale deeds, there was delay in releasing the same and then inordinate delay in sending application to the Central Government in the Ministry of Food Processing for claiming subsidy which is substantial. In such event, petitioner should not be made liable to pay interest for the delayed period. Petitioner states that the NPA amount was about Rs 4.08 crores. Petitioner has, by now, already deposited about Rs 3.60 crores. This clearly establishes bona fide of petitioner to liquidate the dues inspite of being in an extremely tight position being a sick industry. In this connection, I may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S J S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd –Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2421 and, in particular, paragraph-23 thereof wherein the Apex Court has held thus : “23. In Jagdamba Oils Mills Ltd (supra), it was observed that “the Court may assist the borrower who has intention to repay but is prevented by insurmountable difficulties in meeting the commitment.” The borrower in that case had made no payment whatsoever to the State Financial Corporation of its outstanding loan. As not even a minimal portion of the amount borrowed had been paid 3 the Court refused to help the defaulter. The borrower, in this case had paid over Rs 14 lakhs as against the principal amount of Rs 44.56 lakhs. A further amount of Rs 10 lakhs was paid on 27th March, 2002 by the appellant to BICICO i e the day after the impugned sale notice was published. Before the High Court a sum of Rs 10 lakhs was paid pursuant to the interim order. In addition, the appellant had approached the BICICO to settle its outstanding dues under the one time settlement policy. As we have already recorded, we entertained the special petition on the condition that the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs 1 crore over and above the amount already paid by it to BICICO. This the appellant has also done. All this shows that the appellant could not be termed to be such a defaulter who deserved no sympathy or assistance by the Court.” In my view, the Ministry of Food Processing, Government of India should also consider that if subsidy was granted in time, the unit would not have become sick and now having become sick, in order to rehabilitate, it must expedite disbursement of the subsidy. At the same time, BIFR must also consider all sacrifices to be made for rehabilitation of the industry and this Court has not restricted the powers of either of the two authorities in granting whatever the relief that is possible because it would be in interest of all concerned that the unit is rehabilitated and substantially the dues are paid at the same time. BIFR can also pass orders with regard to the interest liabilities that have to be met in the facts noted above. With this clarification, the matter is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)