IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13533 of 2004 M/s Singh Intt. Udyog, through its Proprietor Surendra Singh, Son of Sri Ramdani Singh, Resident of Village- Harsidhi, P.S. Harsidhi, District-East Champaran. ----- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Bank of India, through its Chief General Manager, Regional Head Office, Kutchahery Road, Mahendru, Patna. 2. The Zonal manager, State Bank of India, Region II, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region II, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Harsidhi Branch, Distt. East Champaran. ------ Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal For S.B.I. : Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate ----------- 6. 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for State Bank of India and its authorities. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to disburse Rs.16,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner industry on the basis of project report submitted by it under the National Equity Fund Scheme and also to allow the petitioner unit to be a viable Small Scale Industrial Unit and not to cripple it deliberately so that it may turn to be a Sick Small Scale Industrial Unit. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleadings of the parties, it is quite 2 apparent that the petitioner has sought sanction of Rs.16,00,000/- as loan under the National Equity Fund Scheme sponsored by Ministry of Defence, Government of India, as the sanctioned amount of loan was Rs.20,00,000/- but he was paid only Rs.4,00,000/-. It is also clearly stated by the respondents that after submission of project report the petitioner was called on to face interview and from the interview as well as the perusal of appraisal form, it transpired that the petitioner had already constructed/set-up pucca Chimney of Brick-kiln and he only required working capital and accordingly, the bank agreed to sanction a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 in his favour to which the petitioner and his partner Jata Shankar Singh agreed and put their signatures on the interview-cum-appraisal form, whereafter the bank made recommendation in his favour for sanction of the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,00,000.00 and the same was duly sanctioned. It is also stated on behalf of the respondents that bank offers loan amount on the basis of requirement and taking into account necessary factors and after completing all the necessary formalities. All these facts were supported by the statement of account as well as letters of petitioner’s partner Mr. Jata Shankar Singh. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that for some times the transaction was smooth but thereafter the petitioner 3 became irregular in payment of loan amount due to which the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner for furnishing his stock statement and to regularize his account but the petitioner did not respond to even repeated letters/reminders. Thus, the petitioner having become defaulter, the loan amount became bad and only thereafter this writ petition has been filed. So far the claim of the petitioner with regard to objective of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) (Annexure 14) as well as the claim of the petitioner with respect to irregular payments by the bank are concerned, it is quite apparent that the objective of the SIDBI cannot be at variance with the interest of the respondents and it cannot legally be taken into account in case of clear defaults. So far the plea of irregular payment made by the bank is concerned, the petitioner should have raised objection then and there but not doing that and failing to liquidate the loan amount which was earlier found to be sufficient within time prescribed his claim for a huge amount of Rs.16,00,000/- cannot legally be allowed. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. S.S. ( S.N. Hussain, J. )