IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.777 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2011 State Bank of India. -----Appellant. Vs. Geeta Sharma. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against direction of learned Single Judge to consider the application of the respondent-writ petitioner in the light of Reserve Bank of India guidelines dated 3.9.2005 for One Time Settlement (OTS) of SME Account. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner took loan from the appellant Bank but the same was not paid back within the stipulated period. She, however, sought to take the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme introduced by the appellant Bank, as per policy of the Reserve Bank of India dated 3.9.2005. Since the Bank did not accept her claim, CWP No.17246 of 2005 was filed in this Court which was disposed of with a direction to consider her claim, vide order 28.10.2005. The Bank, however, rejected her claim vide order dated 20.3.2006, against which writ L.P.A. No.777 of 2011 petition giving rise to the impugned order was filed. The writ petition was opposed on the ground that the petitioner was a willful defaulter as she failed to avail of the OTS Scheme introduced in the year 2001. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the writ petitioner holding that the petitioner promptly approached the Court and the reasons given for declining her request were not genuine. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Sardar Associates and others v. Punjab & Sind Bank and others 2009 (8) SCC 257, it was held that the benefit of the Scheme should not be withheld arbitrarily. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is as under:- “…… As per the guidelines dated 3.9.2005 (Annexure P-2), the cases of willful default, fraud and malfeasance are not covered by the guidelines. It has not been pointed out before me in any appropriate manner as to how the case of the petitioner can be termed as a case of willful default. It can be said that non-payment of loan in majority of the cases may be termed as willful default cases and the benefit of the policy guidelines declined. The petitioner had voluntarily come forward to make an offer for one time settlement by discharging the liability as per the guidelines, which was rejected, primarily on the ground that it is a case of willful default, though with an additional reason that it is a decree case. The Bank is not justified in pressing the ground on the basis of a decree as Bank had earlier itself made an offer for one time settlement for the petitioner, 2 L.P.A. No.777 of 2011 ignoring the same decree, which is of the year 2000. Ultimately, aim is recovery of loan amount which may have gone bad and if the petitioner had a right to invoke and get the benefit of the Scheme of one time settlement, the same can not be denied to him…….” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Only contention which has been pressed on behalf of the appellant is that the petitioner failed to clear the outstanding amount in the year 2001 and thus, the calculation had to be made accordingly as per the new Scheme. 6. This aspect is not shown to have been raised before learned Single Judge. Moreover, the direction of learned Single Judge is only to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of RBI guidelines dated 3.9.2005, which is not shown in any manner to be erroneous. 7. No interference is, thus, called for with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 05, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3