IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10178 of 2011 1. M/S Om Sri Balaji Trading, a partnership firm having its place of Business at Awasthi Bhavan, Belwarganj, Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, Town and Distt-Patna through one of its partners Shri Arbind Kumar Awasthi Son of Sri Bidya Bhushan Awasthi , R/O Awasthi Bhavan , Belwarganj, Gulzarbagh , P.S. Alamganj, Town and Distt- Patna. 2. Smt.Premlata Awasthi W/o Sri Bidya Bhushan Awasthi, R/O - Awasthi Bhavan , Belwarganj , Gulzarbagh , P.S. Alamganj, Town and Distt-Patna………………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Bank of India, a Banking Company , Constituted Under the State Bank of India Act, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director having its Registered Office-Cum-Corporate Centre, State Bank Of India Bhavan , Madame Came Road, Mumbai-400021. 2. The Chief Manager , State Bank of India, Exhibition Road , Branch , Patna. 3. The Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre , Zonal Office, State Bank of India , Second Floor , Patna Main Branch , West Gandhi Maidan , Patna. 4. The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India , Stressed Assets Resolution Centre , Patna………………..Respondents. For the petitioners :M/s Gautam Kejriwal and Akash Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the respondents :Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 12/ 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 14.02.2011 bearing reference no.SARB/NKS/2643 and letter dated 10/12.03.2011 bearing reference no.SARB/NKS/2991 issued under the signature of respondent Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre of the respondent bank whereby and whereunder anomalous, illegal and unfounded demands in the nature of outstanding dues against the loan account as well as interest has been raised in spite - 2 - of petitioners already having liquidated by way of full and final settlement the loan account way back on 23.02.2010 in terms of the compromise settlement already arrived at with the respondent bank as well as order dated 04.10.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No.52 of 2010; (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue No Dues Certificate to the petitioners with respect to the Cash Credit Loan Account No.10901187480 belonging to petitioner no.1 as well as to release the documents of title to the immovable landed property mortgaged by petitioner no.2 and all other documents furnished as security against the aforesaid loan account which has already been liquidated by way of full and final settlement both in terms of compromise with the respondent bank confirmed by Debt Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 04.01.2010 and 04.10.2010 and also for the vital cause that the petitioners’ case being fully covered by the SBI OTS SME Scheme, 2010 wherein the petitioner has already submitted its proposal for final settlement and conclusion of the episode; (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to adequately compensate the petitioners on account of having offered undue harassment by withholding the No Dues Certificate and documents relating to securities already furnished by the petitioners in spite of full and final payment of the settlement amount already made by the petitioners as well as surplus paid in terms of SBI OTS SME Scheme, 2010; (iv) For grant of any other relief/reliefs as the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties it is quite apparent that the petitioners are loanees and after declaration of their assets as Non-Performing Assets a proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and - 3 - Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was initiated against them and notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners on 20.01.2009 (Annexure-1). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents had indicated that petitioner no.1 had made a proposal for settlement of its dues against the Cash Credit Account no.10901187480, which was accepted and sanctioned by the Branch of the Bank on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The entire compromise amount of Rs.31,45,000.00 (Rupees Thirty-one lacs forty-five thousand only) is to be paid by you within 06 months beginning from 11.04.2009, i.e. by 10.10.2009. (ii) Interest at P.L.R. will be charged on outstanding amount after three months from the date of compromise settlement. (iii) If the compromise amount is not deposited as per the above schedule the Bank will be free to take suitable action for recovery of its entire dues from the borrowers and guarantors with up to date interest and expenses. (iv)This compromise is subject to a compromise decree from D.R.T., Patna. 5. Thereafter petitioners sent letter dated 01.10.2009 for extension of the aforesaid time granted by the authorities which was allowed and extension of time for full and final payment including interest at PLR was approved up to 31.12.2009 vide letter dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure-3) in which it was also mentioned that interest @ PLR will be payable with effect from 11.07.2009 on reducing the balance basis. - 4 - 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also showed letter dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure-10) sent by the petitioners for considering the case of the petitioners in which the petitioners had stated that earlier compromise had failed (as advised by your letter under reference) and hence the petitioners were not eligible for compromise under SBI OTS Scheme-2010, subject to the condition that the excess amount paid, which was rejected and hence the authority was quite justified in passing its impugned order dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure-13) stating that the petitioners had not deposited the interest at PLR @ 11.25% with effect from 10.07.2009 to 31.12.2009 which is Rs.1,19,996.00 plus interest @ 9% from 01.01.2010 to 23.02.2010 i.e. Rs. 6,984.00 plus compromise amount Rs.31,45,000.00 totalling Rs.32,71,980.00 against which the petitioners had paid a total amount of Rs.31,70,000.00 and hence a short fall of Rs.1,01,980.00 in terms of order dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure-11). Hence petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.1,01,980.00 so that No Dues Certificate in petitioners’ favour may be issued. 7. It transpires that after the said letter the respondents authorities sent another letter dated 10/12.03.2011 (Annexure-13/A) informing that while computing banks dues vis-a-vis repayments of Rs.31,70,000.00 paid in the loan account, the petitioners had still to pay Rs.4,68,275.00 as loan amount and interest up to 15.03.2011 plus Rs.50,798.00 as miscellaneous expenses incurred by bank which the petitioners must pay with up-to-date interest within 15 days of receipt - 5 - of the said letter. 8. It is quite apparent that earlier the petitioners had filed M.A. No.32 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna which was disposed of on 04.10.2010 (Annexure-11) on the following basis:- (i) A compromise letter dated 11.04.2009 was issued by bank and party was asked to pay the compromise amount by 10.07.2009 without interest, thereafter, PLR interest will be charged. Thereafter another letter was issued by bank on 19.06.2009, 24.08.2009 and on 09.10.2009. (ii) Further the borrower has filed an application on 01.10.2009 before bank for extension of time upto 31.12.2009 and another request dated 29.12.2009 has been submitted before bank for extension upto 31.03.2010. (iii) However, the borrower has deposited the full compromise amount on 23.02.2010 and also stated that his letter has not been replied by bank and also praying for issuance NOC by bank. (iv) The act shows by borrower seems bonafide as he has paid full compromise amount by 23.02.2010 but after due date of compromise as he could not arrange the amount in time. Hence, the borrower is directed to pay simple 09% interest for the delay period accordingly after 01.01.2010, Bank will issue NOC in favour of borrower. 9. It further transpires that the Deputy General Manager of the respondent-Bank sent letter dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure-14) to the petitioners with reference to petitioners’ letter dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure-15) advising that in connection with petitioners’ compromise proposal, SARB, Patna had found that a sum of Rs.1,01,980.00 was still due with the petitioners as interest for delayed payment and requested the petitioners to deposit the said dues for - 6 - settlement of the petitioners’ Account No.10901187480. It may be noted that no date was mentioned in the said order by which date the petitioners had to make the said payment. 10. It further transpires that in compliance of the said letter of the authorities dated 09.05.2011 the petitioners submitted a cheque of Rs.1,01,980.00 dated 11.07.2011 with a condition that cheque be kept in a ‘No Lien’ account subject to decision of the High Court in this writ petition. The said condition was not acceptable to the respondents and hence they issued letter dated 06.08.2011 (Annexure-16) advising the petitioners to contact the authorities after final decision of the High Court in this case. 11. From the entire factual aspect of the matter it becomes clear that letter dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure-13) and letter dated 10/12.03.2011 (Annexure-13/A) were issued by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, whereas letter dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure-14) was issued by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank. The Deputy General Manager of the Bank being the higher authority issued the said letter dated 09.05.2011 after considering the entire facts of the case, including the earlier communications of Assistant General Manager who was junior in rank and only thereafter he issued that letter dated 09.05.2011 which is binding not only the petitioners but also on the other authorities of the Bank. 12. It is not in dispute that the cheque of Rs.1,01,980.00 dated 11.07.2011 has been returned to the petitioners and is in their possession, hence the petitioners must within 15 days deposit the said - 7 - cheque with the Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Patna (respondent no.3) along with another cheque of an amount for interest on Rs.1,01,980.00 @ 9% per annum from 09.05.2011 till the date of submission of the cheque. The said authority would accept the cheques so filed within the aforesaid time, whereafter the documents will be released by the authorities to the petitioners and that will be the final settlement of the loan account no.10901187480 of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna. 13. With the aforesaid directions/observations this writ petition is disposed of. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)