CWP No.8561 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8561 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.02.2011 **** M/s. Pabla Cold Storage & Ice Factory . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab Financial Corporation . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. GS Gill, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-Cold storage seeks quashing of the Memo dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure P1), whereby, the Punjab Financial Corporation raised a demand of Rs.3,78,98,239/- with further interest w.e.f. 15.05.2009 against the petitioner’s loan account. CWP No.8561 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The above-stated order has been purportedly passed in compliance to the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court disposing of CWP No.20072 of 2006 (M/s. Pabla Cold Storage and Ice Factory vs. State of Punjab and another), whereby it was held that:- xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 6. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280, the question whether terms of one time settlement scheme or other concessional scheme have been complied with or not is normally not to be gone into in writ jurisdiction. However, in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095, penal interest cannot be compounded. 7. We dispose of this petition by setting aside compounding of penal interest, which is contrary to law but the question whether ordinary interest could be compounded, is a question which may require adjudication by an appropriate forum, we leave the said question open to be settled in appropriate forum. xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx CWP No.8561 of 2009.doc - 3 – (3). The petitioner urges that the amount sought to be recovered from it vide the impugned memo (Annexure P1) is based upon the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed overlooking the One Time Settlement Scheme for rehabilitation of the sick Cold Storages formulated by respondent-Corporation on 18th July, 1986 (Annexure P2). (4). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that the petitioner’s claim was settled in terms of the above-stated Scheme in the year 1986 but it having failed to deposit the due amount on time, that the 1986 Scheme cannot be pressed into aid by the petitioner time and again. (5). After going through the Division Bench order dated November 19, 2008 (Annexure P14) passed in the earlier writ petition, it appears that the question as to whether or not the benefit of concessional scheme was still available to the petitioner, was not specifically dealt with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The question as to whether the respondents have now determined the petitioner’s liability after correctly counting the interest component is the question of fact and upon the directions issued by this Court, the respondents have placed on CWP No.8561 of 2009.doc - 4 – record the statement of accounts. If the petitioner finds that there is any error in the matter of calculation of the interest component and still it is entitled to the benefit of OTS scheme, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondents with such objection(s)/claim within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On receipt thereof, the respondents are directed to consider those objection(s)/ claim and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order as early as possible and preferably within one month thereafter. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 21.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge