(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2011 Sumati Packaging, Through its Partner, Sau. Kanchan Ganesh Barhate, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 8, Siddhi Vinayak Society, Gajanan Nagar, Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32) 2. The Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 3rd Floor, New Central Building, Opposite Sasoon Hospital, Pune. 3. The Bhusawal People's Cooperative Bank Ltd., Station Road, Bhusawal, Through its Managing Director. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Because of directions of Division Bench of this court dated 15th November 2010, in Writ Petition No. 7320/2010, application dated 6th April 2010, made by the petitioner has been re-considered by respondent no.2. 3. In the impugned order dated 11-2-2011, said authority has found that date 28-2-2006 is correct for categorizing loan account of the petitioner as N.P.A.. While giving reasons, it has noted that in 2005, as per demand of the petitioner, fresh loan has been sanctioned and the loan has been utilized. Because of this, it has then found that there was alleged non-payment of interest (3) prior to 2004 and hence categorization of that account as N.P.A. before 2005 was done. It has also noticed that after sanction of fresh loan, if petitioner had paid 12 monthly instalments, the loan could have continued in sub-standard category. But as petitioner has lifted the increased loan amount in 2005, the loan account could not have been treated as N.P.A. since 2004. 4. Adv. Mr. A.G. Talhar, for the petitioner, has invited attention to the clauses, particularly Clause 2.2.7.4 of Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, to urge that this clause has not been rightly looked into by respondent no.2. He further contends that grant of fresh loan was only in relation to term loan and the dispute was in relation to C.C. limit. 5. Adv. Mr. V.D. Hon, for respondent no.3, contends that as per orders of Division Bench, grievance expressed in representation / application dated 6-4-2010 has only been considered and effort of the petitioner to expand it in the present matter cannot be encouraged. 6. Learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, for respondent nos.1 and 2, is also supporting the impugned order. 7. Perusal of Clause 2.2.7.4 of Master Circular shows (4) that all non-performing assets upon restructuring, would be eligible for up-gradation to the 'standard' category after observation of 'satisfactory performance' during the 'specified period'. The earlier Clause 2.2.7.2 shows that accounts classified as 'standard assets' need to be immediately re-classified as 'sub- standard assets' upon restructuring, and Clause 2.2.7.3 shows that non-performing assets, upon restructuring, would slip into further lower asset classification category as per extant asset classification norms with reference to the pre-restructuring repayment schedule. It is, therefore, clear that the clauses have got no bearing on the date relevant for declaring the account as non-performing asset. 8. The contention, that impugned order deals with only term loan account and not C.C. limit, cannot be accepted. The petitioner has specifically urged that in March 2005, C.C. limit was also increased. This shows that the increased C.C. limit and term loan for the year 2005-06 has been used by the petitioner. The pleadings nowhere show that those were only paper entries made by respondent no.3 / Bank and there was no actual disbursement. The impugned order correctly notices that there was increase in sanctioned loan in 2005 and this is not only in relation to term loan but also about C.C. limit. The consideration relevant for determination of date of categorization is, thus, (5) reflected on record. I, therefore, do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1836