M/S Girish Raju Ujawane And ... vs Union Bank Of India, Br. At ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16464 Bom

                                                   Judgment in WP No.4330.2021.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4330 OF 2021

 1. M/s Girish Raju Ujawane and Brothers,
    a partnership firm acting through its
    partner Shri Harish S/o Raju Ujawane, at
    Shop No.1, Building No.5, APMC Market,
    Kalmana Yard, Nagpur - 440008

 2. Mr. Harish S/o Raju Ujawane, Aged 41
    years,    Occ. Business, R/o.9/4, Mittal
    Enclave, Pardi, Bhandara Road, Nagpur

 3. Ramesh S/o Arjunrao Sonkusale, Aged 62
                                                    .. Petitioners
    years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.45,
    House No. 2265/A/45, Sneh Nagar, Near
    Wardha Road, Nagpur

 4. Smt. Mangala Ramesh Sonkusai Aged 55
    years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No. House
    No. 2265/A/45, Sneh Nagar, Near Wardha
    Road, Nagpur

                     Versus

 1. Union Bank of India, A banking company
    duly constituted under the provisions of
    banking Companies (Acquisition and
    Transfer of Undertaking) Act. No. V of
    1970, having its one of its branches at
    Dhantoli, Nagpur through Constituted           .. Respondents
    Attorney Shri S. Arvind Kumar Branch
    Manager.

 2. Tahasildar Nagpur, Addressed at Tahasildar
    Office, Civil lines, Nagpur - 1


Mr. R. H. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. M .V. Acharya, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.


                                                                    PAGE 1 OF 6
                                                         Judgment in WP No.4330.2021.odt




                             CORAM :           SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                               ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

                             DATED     :       29/11/2021



ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)


                    Heard.     Rule.       Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties present

before the Court.

(2) For the recovery of the dues of the respondent No.1

Bank outstanding against the petitioners, there was a proceeding

pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur bearing O. A. No.87 of

2017, wherein the settlement occurred between the petitioners and

respondent No.1 Bank, at the time of National Lok Adalat. The

settlement arrived at between the parties was only a one time

settlement and as per the terms of the settlement, the dues were to be

paid latest by 26/11/2019. The deadline of 26/11/2019 could not be

met by the petitioners for some reasons and therefore, they made a

request to the respondent No.1 Bank for extending the time for

compliance of the terms and conditions of the one time settlement.

PAGE 2 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4330.2021.odt

The respondent No.1 Bank agreed to do so and extended time for

compliance till 15/03/2021, when it had issued a letter dated

04/03/2021. It is an admitted fact that though the Bank extended the

deadline, the petitioners could not pay the entire dues as mentioned in

the consent decree and therefore, on 09/09/2021, the respondent

No.1 Bank finally informed the petitioners that they had cancelled the

one time settlement by exercising the right conferred upon the Bank in

the consent decree.

(3) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

on 09/09/2021, the petitioners had deposited with the respondent

No.1 Bank 85% of the total outstanding dues and therefore, the Bank

ought not to have adopted an adamant attitude in this case and should

have agreed to extend further deadline for depositing of the remaining

15% of the outstanding dues in terms of the one time settlement. He

also submits that in some other accounts the Bank has accepted such

pleas of the borrowers and extended the deadlines in the one time

settlement arrived at with those borrowers, but here in this case, the

Bank is not doing so and therefore, the Bank has indulged in

impermissible discriminatory treatment to the petitioners.

PAGE 3 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4330.2021.odt

(4) The submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioners are disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondent No.1

Bank and he submits that there was neither any discriminatory

treatment given to the petitioners, nor the Bank could be compelled in

law to extend the time limit, which is a matter purely between the

petitioners and the respondent No.1 Bank and which falls in the realm

of contractual law.

(5) Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing

for respondent No.2 submits that an appropriate order be passed,

although he submits that in contractual matters, the writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available. He also submits

that extension of the time limit for repaying of the outstanding amount

in accordance with the terms and conditions of the consent decree is

something, which is a matter of contract between the parties to the

consent decree.

(6) We agree with submissions of learned counsel for

respondent No.1 and learned AGP. In such contractual matters, the

Writ Court has no role to play and jurisdiction of this Court, as rightly

submitted by the learned counsel and learned AGP, under Article 226

PAGE 4 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4330.2021.odt

of the Constitution cannot be invoked. In such matters, it is not

permissible in law for the Court to substitute its will for the will of any

of the parties to a contract.

(7) In this case, respondent No.1 Bank after having

extended time limit till 15/03/2021, waited for a considerable period

of time and it was only on 09/09/2021, that it sent a letter to the

petitioners informing that the one time settlement had been cancelled

by the respondent No.1 Bank. Such cancellation, is consistent with the

power conferred upon the respondent No.1 Bank, in terms of the terms

and conditions of the consent decree. When the respondent No.1 Bank

has waited for such a long period of time for the petitioners, as late as

September, 2021, almost for a period of more than five months from

the date of the expiry of the time limit, it could not be said that the

respondent No.1 Bank has acted unreasonably in this case. In fact,

there was unwritten extension of last date and such unwritten

extension given by the respondent No.1 Bank would itself show that

respondent No.1 Bank had been quite lenient to the petitioners. Then,

if the respondent No.1 Bank has extended time limit for compliance

with the terms and conditions of one time settlement on multiple

PAGE 5 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4330.2021.odt

occasions in other cases, no parity can be drawn by any borrower from

other cases, as facts of each and every other case are different. The

similarity of facts of the other cases with the facts of the present case

has not been demonstrated in any manner by the petitioners.

Therefore, the argument of discriminatory treatment given to the

petitioners would not be available here. On the contrary, as stated

earlier, the respondent No.1 Bank has been quite lenient in this case

and this itself has shown that respondent No.1 Bank has acted in a

reasonable manner. The petitioners are at liberty to once again make

an effort to convince the authorities of respondent No.1 Bank about

the relief that the petitioners are claiming here.

(8) In the circumstances, we find no merit in the

petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged. No costs.

                          [ ANIL L. PANSARE J. ]                    [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.]


               KOLHE




Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
     CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
      Signing Date:01.12.2021
                        17:57
                                                                                         PAGE 6 OF 6