JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J.
CM No. 9064/2005
1. It is an application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 27.7.2005.
2. Mr. Bhushan appearing for the respondent says that he does not wish to file any reply and he has no objection if the application is allowed. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
WP(C) No. 471/2004
3. This writ petition, inter alia, challenges an order passed by the Joint Secretary-(Coopn.) & Appellate Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, department of Agriculture & Cooperation. The Appellant Authority took notice of the admission of the respondent that the respondent has obtained an amount of Rs. 49 crores by way of call money in an inter bank transaction and has also admitted its liability about the same. However, in view of the scheme of rehabilitation of the respondent bank, the Appellate Authority has vacated the direction issued to the Appellant bank attaching the SGL Account of the respondent. The relevant paragraph D of the scheme is at page 171, which led to the vacation of attachment order is as under:-
"An amount of Rs. 192 crores has been borrowed by the MMCB from different cooperative and commercial banks as call money and it has failed to relay the amount and, therefore, it is outstanding Rs. 93 crores have been borrowed from various cooperative banks. These would be converted into fixed deposits for four years and would be repaid in five yearly equated installments from the fifth year. The interest @ 7.5% per annum will be paid to the banks at half yearly intervals. Rs. 99 crores from commercial banks would also be similarly converted into fixed deposits."
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the present appeal was preferred and on 22.1.2004 the following order on CM 354/2004 was passed by this Court:-
"Notice to the respondents, returnable on 28th July, 2004.
While taking into consideration that respondent No. 3 has obtained an amount of Rs. 49 crore by way of call money and the same liability has been admitted by them why the account of respondent No. 3 be not attached.
In the meanwhile, the SGL Account No. BYSL-0839 of respondent No. 3 with the Reserve Bank of India shall remain attached to the extent of awarded amount till the next date of hearing. dusty."
5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended before us that the scheme has been modified in so far as the payment of interest is concerned in as much as the interest has been reduced from 7-1/2 % to 3% per annum.
6. We are not concerned with the subsequent modification of the scheme as that is not part of the order before us. However, Mr. Bhushan says that the respondents are prepared to pay the outstanding dues of the appellant but it is the attachment order passed by us which is coming in the way of the respondents. In this view of the matter, we modify our order and make it clear that in so far as the payment to the appellant is concerned, there is no attachment of the SGL account of the respondents.
7. Mr. Bhushan says that the amount shall be paid within six weeks. Let the amount be paid as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27.11.2003. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to approach the Appellate Authority for the modification of the order in terms of the modified scheme. We make it clear that any modification in the order by the appellate authority shall be done after hearing the appellant in this regard. Once, the amount is paid under the scheme, the interim order granted by this Court shall not continue any further. Appellant to comply with the necessary formalities for making the payment.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of.