IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1158 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 9696 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6539 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No1158 of 2010 ========================================= 1. Jai Krishna Upadhyaya s/o Haridwar Upadhyaya 2. Haridwar Upadhyaya s/o late Bindeshwari Upadhyaya, both resident at Road no.3 R.M.s. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District – Patna .. Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. General Manager, Canara Bank, Boring Road Branch through its Manager, located in S.K.Puru, P.S. S.K.Puri, Patna 3. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Boring Road, Patna … Respondents ============================================ APPEARANCE For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr.Shashi Shekhar, AC to SC -XX For the Respondent Bank : Mrs. Sheela Sharma,Advocate Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 25/10/2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 28th June 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.9696 of 2010. The appellants – writ petitioners are traders dealing in distribution of medicines. They had borrowed loan from the respondent - Canara Bank (hereinafter 2 referred to as „the Bank‟). The appellants failed to repay the loan as per the schedule. Indisputably, the appellants are in arrears of re-payment of the loan amount. Indeed, under the orders of the court the appellants have paid certain amounts. However, they are still indebted to the Bank. The appellants claim that the Bank be compelled to settle the account of the appellants under the settlement scheme (annexure -1 to the Appeal). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. The Appeal is contested by Mrs. Sheela Sharma. She has submitted that the scheme (annexure -1 to the Appeal) is not applicable in case of the appellants. Moreover, the appellants are willful defaulters. Their account, therefore, cannot be settled. In support of her argument Mrs. Sharma has relied upon the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The above Act is enacted by the Government of India to provide for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. Under the said Act the word “enterprise” is defined, inter alia, to mean an industrial undertaking or a business engaged in the manufacture or production of the goods. The aforesaid definition is exhaustive and does not include the trading business. The Bank appears to have framed a scheme for one time settlement of doubtful and loss assets with total dues of Rs.50.00 lacs and below in micro and small 3 enterprises sector. The said scheme has been made applicable specifically to micro and small enterprises alone. It specifically excludes from its purview the cases of willful default, fraud and malfeasance. In our opinion, by its very nature the benefit under the scheme can be extended to a business engaged in manufacturing or production of goods alone and that too an industry specified in First Schedule. The appellants admittedly cannot be classified as either a micro or a small enterprise. The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the above one time settlement scheme. We, therefore, cannot issue a writ of mandamus upon the Bank calling upon it to settle the loan account of the appellants under the above referred scheme (annexure -1 to the Appeal). The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application no. 6539 of 2010 stands disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)