IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18921 of 2010 M/S KISAN COLD STORAGE, REGISTERED OFFICE, AMARPUR ROAD, P.S. HABIBPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR, THROUGH ONE OF THE PARTNERS, MD.SHAHABUDDIN, SON OF LATE SHAMSHUDDIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HABIBPUR, P.S. HABIBPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR--- PETITIONER Versus 1.UNITED BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 11, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, KOLKATA- 700 001 (WEST BENGAL) 2.AUTHORISED OFFICER UNITED BANK OF INDIA BIHAR REGIONAL OFFICE, ABHAY BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, FRASER ROAD, PATNA-800 001 3.SENIOR MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BHAGALPUR BRANCH, D.N.SINGH ROAD, KHALIFA BAGH, CHAWK BRANCH, BHAGALPUR, P.S. KITWALI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR-812 2201 4.DEPUTY MANAGER, UNIED BANK OF INDIA, BHAGALPUR BRANCH, D.N.SINGH ROAD, KHALIFA BAGH, CHAWK, P.S. KOTWALI, BHAGALPUR-812001 5.BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 6TH FLOOR, ANAND ROAD, PATNA-800 001---- --RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Ganpati Trivedi,Madan Mohan, Advocates For the respondents :M/S Ajay Kumar Sinha, Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates ------- 2. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner Cold Storage was sanctioned term loan of Rs.1.25 crores in the year 2008 and further cash credit limit of Rs.2.53 crores. The petitioner also took three insurance policies from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. covering the entire risk. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of failure of power supply as also of the generator set in the cold storage in the month of 2 May, 2008 the potatoes stored in the cold storage deteriorated leading to a loss of Rs. 1.70 crores while the surveyors of the Insurance Company assessed a loss of Rs.1.30 crores but the Insurance Company negated its liability under the insurance policy and rejected the petitioner’s claim on 25.7.2008. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2009 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner’s loan account having become non- performing was declared as such by the Bank and proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been taken. As on 31.3.2010 the arrears in all the loan accounts was Rs.3,21,93,103/- which is stated to be about Rs.3.31 crores at present. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to a subsidy of Rs.50 lacs to be received from NABARD out of which 21.20 lacs have already been received and adjusted by the Bank on 31.3.2010. He further submits that his claim against the Insurance Company is to the tune of Rs.1.70 crores; thus after taking into consideration the claim against the Insurance Company and the remaining amount of subsidy 3 the petitioner would be liable to pay approximately Rs.1.32 crores to the Bank. He states on instructions that the petitioner is willing to pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs within one week from today and after every three months instalments of Rs.25 lacs. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Bank is not agreeable to the offer made as there is no guarantee that any amount would be received from the Insurance Company and further it is not clear as to whether the aforesaid amount of subsidy have been paid in full or anything remains to be paid. Considering the offer made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not belong to the category of a person who has wilfully defaulted on the payment of loan and his intention appears to be bonafide to repay the loan of the Bank. In the above circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.10 lacs within one week from today, i.e., by 3rd December, 2010 and thereafter an amount of Rs.10 lacs by 31st January, 2011 and the same amount on or before the last day of each succeeding month until the entire loan amount with accrued interest is cleared 4 off, excepting the amount covered by the claim against the Insurance Company and the remaining subsidy amount then the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act shall remain in abeyance. It is made clear that failure of the petitioner to pay any of the instalments within the time granted shall revive the said proceedings. So far as the dues against the Insurance Company is concerned, it would be for the petitioner to ensure that the proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are concluded within a period of six months from today and after the conclusion of the same whatever amount remains payable to the Bank the petitioner shall approach the Bank for repayment within a reasonable period of time, which shall be subject to further agreement between the parties. The petitioner shall also pursue his claim regarding the payment of the balance subsidy amount, for which necessary assistance if required shall be provided by the respondent Bank, and in case any further amount is received the same shall be adjusted by the Bank against the loan account of the petitioner forthwith, if the same has not already been received. If no further subsidy amount is payable, in that case, the 5 petitioner shall also give a proposal to the Bank for repayment of the balance amount and the same shall also be subject to further agreement between the parties. It would be open to the Bank to take appropriate steps against the petitioner on the failure of the petitioner to repay the amounts which are involved in the claim against Insurance Company and the subsidy. So far as the subsidy amount of Rs.21.20 lacs or any other amount already received by the Bank is concerned, if the same has not been adjusted in the petitioner’s loan account immediately then the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of non-charging of interest from the date on which the same was received in the Bank and the date on which it has been adjusted. The writ application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/