Bombay High Court
M/S. Ace Agro Bio- Enery Farms Pvt. ... vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
1 J-WP-3972-21-f
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
URMILA
URMILA PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE
WRIT PETITION NO.3972 OF 2021
Date:
INGALE 2022.05.07
13:09:42
+0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1860 OF 2021
1. M/s. Ace Agro Bio-Energy
Farms Pvt. Ltd.,
The Iconic Living Pan Card
Club Road, Baner, Pune,
Maharashtra - 411 045.
2. M/s. Ace Nurseries Pvt. Ltd.,
The Iconic Living Pan Card
Club Road, Baner, Pune,
Maharashtra - 411 045.
3. M/s. Ace Agro Bioscience Ltd.,
The Iconic Living Pan Card
Club Road, Baner, Pune,
Maharashtra - 411 045.
4. M/s. Sona Organic Farms
Pvt. Ltd., The Iconic Living
Pan Card Club Road, Baner,
Pune, Maharashtra - 411 045. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
Having its office at Vardhaman
Building, 2nd Floor, 321/A/3,
Mahatma Phule Peth, Seven
Loves Chowk, Shankarsheth Road,
Pune - 411 042.
And also having address at
Varma Chambers, Homji Street,
Fort, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra.
2. Reserve Bank of India,
Having address at New Central
Office Building,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2 J-WP-3972-21-f
3. Union of India, through
the Jt. Secretary
Ministry of Law & Justice,
Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai.
4. Union of India
Having address at 2A, Arora
Towers, 69, Moledin Road,
Pune Camp - 411 001. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sidharth
Samantarey, Mr. A. P. Steenson and Mr. Shivam Laturiya
i/b. APS Law Associates for Petitioners.
Mr. Suhail Farooqui and Mr. Inayat Ali Qureshi i/b. KK
Associates for the respondent No.1 - SBI and for
applicants in IA/1860/21.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 18/11/2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 06/05/2022
JUDGMENT : (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia, seeks the following
substantive reliefs:
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for records and
papers pertaining to the letter dated
03/10/2020 rejecting the OTS and after
examining the validity, legality and propriety
thereof, the same be quashed and set aside.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue Writ of Mandamus and/or direction in
the nature of the Writ of Mandamus or any
3 J-WP-3972-21-f
other writ and direct the Respondent Bank to
enforce the OTS and accept the monies
balance residue amount towards OTS from the
Petitioners.
(c) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue Writ of Mandamus and/or direction in
the nature of the Writ of Mandamus or any
other writ and quash and set aside the e-
auction notice dated 29th October, 2020.
(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue Writ of Mandamus and/or direction in
the nature of the Writ of Mandamus or any
other writ directing the Reserve Bank of India
to exercise powers of superintendence and
control of the Respondent Bank for conducting
an investigation into the management and
affairs of the Respondent Bank under section
351A of the RBI Act.
2. In brief, it is the grievance of the Petitioners that
they have been illegally deprived of the benefit of One
Time Settlement scheme (OTS for short) introduced by
Respondent No.1-State Bank of India ('Bank' for short),
on a frivolous ground of ineligibility.
3. For seeking the aforementioned reliefs, the following
factual foundation is pleaded in the petition by the
Petitioners:
A) The Petitioners are carrying out Agro based
business in the name and style as M/s. Ace
Agro Bio-Energy Farms Pvt Ltd. (Petitioner
No.1), M/s. Ace Nurseries Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner
No.2), M/s. Ace Agro Bioscience Limited
(Petitioner No.3) and M/s. Sona Organic
Farms Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner No.4). The
promoter of the Petitioners was Late Shri
Avinash Rangnekar who expired sometime in
the year 2017. Respondent No.2 is the
Reserve Bank of India ('RBI' for short). RBI
4 J-WP-3972-21-f
exercises powers of supervision and
inspection on the Bank.
B) The Petitioners had availed loan facilities from
the Bank for which they had mortgaged
immovable properties being Gat Nos.91, 100,
102, 103, 107, 112 and 113 at Belaj, Taluka
at Kondiwade, Taluka Maval, District Pune.
The Petitioners suffered business losses due to
which they were not able to make repayments
and the account was classified as Non-
Performing Asset ('NPA' for short) way back in
the year 2013 itself. Thereafter, the Bank filed
Original Application ('OA' for short) before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune ('DRT' for
short). During pendency of the OA, Shri
Avinash Rangnekar expired and the
responsibility of the entire business fell on the
shoulders of his son Shri Aniruddha
Rangnekar.
C) The Bank had intimated and informed the
Petitioners vide its letter dated 20/10/2020
about the scheme of OTS of NPA and clarified
the scheme of OTS thereby offering the
Petitioners the OTS in line with the RBI
guidelines (Exhibits "A", "A1", "A2" and "A3").
The DRT vide e-auction sale notice dated
29/10/2020 put up one of the immovable
properties for e-auction sale which was to be
conducted on 08/12/2020 (Exh. "B") by way
of auction through online electronic bidding.
D) The Petitioners accepted the OTS offer as per
the OTS scheme of the Bank vide its letter
dated 05/11/2020 and deposited 5% of the
OTS amount as per the OTS scheme i.e.
Rs.12,43,000/- + Rs.2,94,000/- +
Rs.84,000/- + Rs.1,42,000/- against the
sanctioned OTS. The Bank accepted this 5%
amount vide its acceptance letter dated
05/11/2020. By letter dated 07/11/2020, the
Bank gave a written confirmation that all the
mortgaged properties shall be released by the
Bank after receipt of the full and final
5 J-WP-3972-21-f
settlement in accordance with the OTS. The
Bank addressed a letter to the Petitioners
clarifying the terms and conditions of
settlement and, accordingly, the amount as
per the OTS scheme was intimated by way of
letter dated 09/11/2020 to each of the
Petitioners. Vide this letter dated 09/11/2020,
the Bank granted time to the Petitioners for
repayment of money as per the OTS and also
granted certain incentives for early
repayment. The Bank sanctioned OTS of the
dues for a total amount of Rs.2,48,56,334/- +
Rs.58,68,652/- + Rs.16,61,603/- +
Rs.28,35,450/- in accordance with the Bank's
letters bearing Ref. Nos.
SARB/PUNE/RAN/463, 464, 465 & 466, all
dated 09/11/2020.
E) The concerned Official on behalf of the
Petitioners visited the office of the Bank on or
about 01/12/2020 with a request to accept
the remaining amount of OTS by availing the
incentive granted by the Bank to the extent of
15% against payment of OTS amount within
one month. The Petitioners tried to hand over
the following Demand Drafts to the Bank
being the entire residual amount of OTS.
DD/Che Name of Date Amount of
que No. the Bank DD
002276 Syndicate 01/12/2020 75,56,183/-
Bank
307135 Kotak 27/11/2020 89,68,701/-
Mahindra
Bank
052164 Cosmos 01/12/2020 33,60,000/-
Bank
180477 Yes Bank 01/12/2020 46,94,355/-
180475 Yes Bank 01/12/2020 22,68,135/-
17671 Kotak 27/11/2020 7,28,363/-
Mahindra
Bank
180476 Yes Bank 01/12/2020 6,00,000/-
6 J-WP-3972-21-f
F) The Petitioners approached the Bank under
an impression that after making the entire
payment of OTS, the Bank would issue NOC
along with letter of release of the securities
mortgaged in favour of the Bank for the loans
availed by them. The Bank refused to accept
the balance amount as per the OTS. The
Petitioners were told that this was on account
of the Recovery Officer of the DRT having put
up the properties for sale and as the sale of
the properties is to be conducted on
08/12/2020, the Bank was well within its
right to refuse to accept the payment.
Further the Petitioners were informed that
the Bank had received some complaints
through the DRT thereby indicating that the
complainant is ready to purchase the
property in auction scheduled to be held on
08/12/2020. The Petitioners allege that there
seems to be a collusive effort to deprive them
of the OTS incentive for reasons unknown
and there are apparently unknown forces
working against the OTS offered to them with
a view to scuttle the settlement process.
4. According to the Petitioners, under no circumstance,
can the Bank refuse to accept the remaining amount of
payment under OTS and that the Bank is bound to
release the securities mortgaged. The Petitioners have
discharged their part of obligations and the Bank now
cannot refuse to perform its part of obligation as the
same would tantamount to breach of contract on the part
of the Bank. The Petitioners through their Advocate
issued a legal notice dated 03/12/2020 calling upon the
Bank to accept the balance residue as per the OTS
scheme.
7 J-WP-3972-21-f
5. Learned senior advocate, Shri Mihir Desai submits
that it is not open for the Bank to refuse the benefit of
OTS only because there has been a mistake on the part
of the Bank as there is now a concluded contract
between the Petitioners and the Bank. It is submitted
that the communication dated 03/12/2020 informing that
the OTS given to the Petitioners is being withdrawn on
the ground that their account is ineligible as the same
was given by mistake, is unsustainable in the teeth of
Section 22 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ('Contract
Act' for short). Learned senior advocate was at pains to
point out that once the OTS was offered to the Petitioners
by the Bank which is accepted by them having complied
with the requisite condition of making payment as
stipulated under the scheme, it is then not open for the
Bank to take a stand that as a result of mistake on their
part the OTS is being withdrawn. Learned senior
advocate urged that though the Petitioners offered to
make the payment and avail the incentive scheme as per
the OTS, the action on the part of the Bank to unilaterally
withdraw the benefit of OTS, already granted, is
arbitrary. It is submitted that there is no change in
circumstances between the period the letters (dated
07/11/2020 & 09/11/2020) sanctioning the OTS and the
impugned communication dated 03/10/2020 rejecting
the OTS were issued. According to him, the action on
the part of the Bank in rejecting the OTS benefit already
sanctioned is an instance of complete non-application of
mind as at least in case of Petitioner Nos.2 and 4,
8 J-WP-3972-21-f
proceedings were pending before the DRT, despite which
the Bank in utter haste rejected the OTS on the ground
that no case was pending before the DRT.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that there was a
bona fide mistake on the part of the Bank in offering the
benefit of OTS scheme to the Petitioners. According to
him, the Petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of OTS
scheme as the OA was finally adjudicated and the decree
is passed by the DRT. He submits that it is only when the
proceedings are pending before the DRT that such
debtors are eligible for the OTS scheme. He submits that
even the consent terms are subject to the orders of DRT.
Learned counsel next contended that even when a
settlement is reached upon sanctioning of the OTS
scheme, consent terms are to be drawn which are
subject to the DRT's orders. It is submitted by learned
counsel that instead of approaching the DRT in the first
instance, the Petitioners have directly filed this writ
petition. Learned counsel submits that the petition should
not be entertained in view of the recourse available
under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
(hereafter "RDDB Act"). Learned counsel therefore
submits that the present petition should not be
entertained.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
memo of petition, relevant exhibits, reply filed on behalf
of the Bank and the rejoinder. The Petitioners defaulted
in the payment of loan taken from the Bank. The Bank
9 J-WP-3972-21-f
filed OA before the DRT for recovery of outstanding loan.
The claim of the Bank was adjudicated by issuing
recovery certificate against the Petitioners. The
Petitioners were directed to make payment of
Rs.13,11,57,069.70 along with interest from the date of
default till realization of payment. Neither an appeal was
preferred against such order, nor payments were made
by the Petitioners. The recovery proceedings came to be
initiated by the Recovery Officer for recovery of
outstanding dues from the Petitioners.
8. The Bank informed the Petitioners about OTS scheme
by its letter dated 20/10/2020. Such offer was made on
the terms and conditions stated in the communication
dated 20/10/2020. Clause No.3 of the proposal mentions
that the application for OTS will be processed only on
deposit of minimum 5% of the OTS amount. Clause No.8
provides that the Petitioners are eligible for an additional
incentive on the OTS amount on making payment of
entire amount as indicated in such communication. The
Bank is heavily relying on Para No.2 of the OTS offer
dated 20/10/2020, which according to the Bank renders
the Petitioners ineligible for availing the benefit of the
OTS scheme. Para No.2 of the said OTS offer dated
20/10/2020 reads thus: -
"2. (Where applicable) Since your case is pending
before Court / Lok Adalat / DRT any settlement will
be subject to consent decree from the respective
court. Since you have been issued notice under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, this notice is without any prejudice to our
10 J-WP-3972-21-f
rights to take / continue actions under the Act
unless a compromise is settled under the present
SBI OTS 2020 Scheme as stated above."
9. The Petitioners acting in furtherance of the
communication dated 20/10/2020 accepted the OTS offer
by depositing 5% of the OTS amount on 05/11/2020. By
a letter dated 05/11/2020, in response to the OTS offer,
the Petitioners conveyed their acceptance of the terms
and conditions stated in the OTS offer dated 20/10/2020.
The Bank on 07/11/2020 informed the Petitioners that
the properties mortgaged to the Bank for credit facilities
granted to them will be released only after full and final
settlement of the accounts strictly as per the terms and
conditions under sanction letter given to the Petitioners.
10. On 09/11/2020, the Bank informed the Petitioners
that the application for OTS has been accepted by the
appropriate authority. The terms and conditions were set
out thereunder. Clause No.8 of the terms and conditions
provided that the consent terms with the default clause
will be filed before the Presiding Officer of DRT / Court for
obtaining consent decree.
11. The Bank then realized that as O.A. No.186/2013
had already attained finality and final decree having been
passed, the Petitioners are ineligible for the OTS scheme.
This mistake they sought to rectify by rejecting the OTS
granted in favour of the Petitioners.
12. According to learned senior advocate for the
Petitioners, the sanction by the Bank to the OTS scheme
amounts to a concluded contract between the parties
11 J-WP-3972-21-f
within the meaning of Section 22 of the Contract Act.
Section 22 provides that "A contract is not voidable
merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it
being under a mistake as to a matter of fact". Learned
senior advocate urged that the OTS sanction is not
voidable merely because the Bank was under a mistake
as to a matter of fact as regards the pendency of the
proceedings before the DRT. The Bank contends that the
RBI guidelines provided that the OTS schemes are
applicable to the matters which are pending before the
DRT and can take effect only on the orders of DRT on the
consent terms.
13. During the course of hearing of this petition, it is
pointed out that as on the date of consideration of the
OTS proposal, final decree has been passed by the DRT
as against Petitioner No.1 - Ms. Ace Agro Bi-Enery Farms
Pvt. Ltd. and Petitioner No.3 - M/s. Ace Agro Bioscience
Limited. However, there is no final decree passed as
against Petitioner No.2 - M/s. Ace Nurseries Pvt. Ltd. and
Petitioner No.4 - M/s. Sona Organic Farms Pvt. Ltd. It is
relevant to place on record that O.A. Nos.188/2013 and
189/2013 filed against the Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are
pending before the DRT. This is so stated in para No.10 of
the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Petitioners and the
same is not controverted by the Bank. Resultant position
is that there is final decree so far as Petitioner Nos.1 and
3 are concerned and so far as Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are
concerned, final decree is yet to be made.
12 J-WP-3972-21-f
14. It is pertinent to note that in the execution
proceedings in respect of O.A. No.186/2013, a notice for
auction dated 03/11/2020 was issued by the DRT, Pune
and the same was published in the newspaper on
06/11/2020 indicating the reserved price of Rs.18.76
Crores. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 - Bank
received the OTS proposal from the Petitioners for a sum
of Rs.3.52 crores. The Recovery Officer was requested to
defer the E-auction for considering the OTS proposal
furnished by the Petitioners. The Recovery Officer
suggested the Petitioners to approach the DRT for
seeking necessary orders and directions from the
Presiding Officer. It is the contention of the Bank that
instead of approaching the Presiding Officer seeking
necessary orders or directions, the Petitioners filed writ
petition to hamper the recovery proceedings. It is then
pointed out that the present petition was filed on
04/12/2020.
15. At this juncture, we need to make a reference to the
interim order dated 08/12/2020 passed by this Court.
The order dated 08/12/2020 reads thus: -
"Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that on
9 November 2020 scheme of One Time Settlement
was offered to the Petitioners and confirmed. The
case of the Petitioners is that pursuant to the said
offer of One Time Settlement, the Petitioners
deposited the initial amount and when the
Petitioners approached the Bank with the remaining
amount, on 3 December 2020, the Petitioners were
informed that One Time Settlement is being
withdrawn and the same was extended by mistake
13 J-WP-3972-21-f
as the account is ineligible. The Petitioner is
aggrieved by putting up the property for auction.
3. The learned Counsel for Respondent-Bank seeks
time to file reply and states that the auction is being
conducted by the officers of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal and the Petitioners can approach the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
4. The impugned order dated 3 December 2020
does not give any reasons, except that the account
is ineligible. Considering the communications dated
9 November 2020 and 3 December 2020 and the
fact that the Petitioners have deposited the initial
amount and have offered the remaining amount, we
are of the opinion that the Petitioners are entitled to
ad-interim protection in the meanwhile.
5. Stand over to 14 January 2021.
6. The auction as proposed shall be now be
rescheduled to a date beyond the date assigned to
this petition.
7. All parties to act on authenticate copy of this
order.
8. The Petitioners to give notice to the
unrepresented respondents."
16. It is undisputed that the OTS scheme in favour of the
Petitioners was sanctioned by the Bank and it is even
acted upon by depositing a sum of Rs.3.52 crores in
compliance with the terms and conditions of the sanction.
The Petitioners approached the Bank with the readiness
to pay the entire dues as per the OTS scheme so as to
avail the incentive benefits of the OTS scheme.
17. The Bank having sanctioned the OTS scheme and the
Petitioners having acted in furtherance thereof, we have
no hesitation in observing that there was a settlement
between the Petitioners and the Bank. To appreciate the
binding nature of the settlement and whether the same
amounts to a concluded contract, a close scrutiny of the
14 J-WP-3972-21-f
terms and conditions of OTS offered by the Bank and the
subsequent sanction of the OTS scheme by the Bank in
favour of the Petitioners is necessitated. If we go through
the contents of the proposal dated 20/10/2020, the same
is subject to following the terms and conditions set out
thereunder. Clause No.2 of the proposal reveals that the
case has to be pending before the DRT and any
settlement will be subject to consent decree from the
DRT. The case against the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 was
pending before the DRT. Therefore, it is obvious that
even if there is any settlement reached between the
Bank and the Petitioners, the same is subject to consent
decree from the DRT. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 can at
the highest submit that the sanction of OTS and the
subsequent acceptance thereof would tantamount to a
settlement. This settlement however will be subject to
consent decree from the DRT in terms of the OTS offer
dated 20/10/20202 and the subsequent sanction. Even
the Petitioners had so understood that the sanction of the
OTS scheme is on the terms and conditions stated
therein. This can be gathered from the communication
dated 05/11/2020 addressed by the Petitioners to the
Bank accepting the OTS offer clearly indicating that the
OTS amount is being paid as per the settlement terms
stated in their letter. Even if we are to accept the
contention of Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 that the settlement
is reached between the Petitioners and the Bank, the
same however is subject to consent decree from the DRT.
It is, therefore, only appropriate in the fact situation of
15 J-WP-3972-21-f
the present case that Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 approach
the DRT for a consent decree on the basis of such
settlement pleaded by them. If it is the case of Petitioner
Nos.2 and 4 that the Bank has proceeded to auction the
properties which adversely affect Petitioner Nos.2 and 4,
it is for them to bring this aspect to the notice of DRT in
the first instance. In such view of the matter, we do find
substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the
Bank that the DRT cannot be bypassed at the cost of
entertaining this writ petition. In the affidavit-in-reply,
the Bank has taken the stand that assuming any OTS
settlement is applicable, the same was only possible
under the orders of the DRT.
18. Let us now consider the case of Petitioner Nos.1 and
3 where a decree is already passed by the DRT. Learned
senior advocate for the Petitioners wants us to take a
broad view of the expression 'case pending before the
DRT' within the meaning of Clause No.2 of the settlement
dated 20/10/2020. He wants this expression to be
extended to the proceedings before the Recovery Officer
in execution of the decree as well. We are not persuaded
at this juncture to decide the contention of learned senior
advocate that even the execution proceedings are to be
regarded as a case pending before the DRT. Having
regard to the terms and conditions of the settlement, the
OTS scheme was accepted by the Petitioners which has
an express clause that any settlement will be subject to
consent decree from the DRT. There is nothing on record
to indicate that the Petitioners expressed any reservation
16 J-WP-3972-21-f
to the clause as regards the settlement being subject to
consent decree from the DRT. As indicated earlier, even in
the communication dated 05/11/2020 at Exh.C
addressed by the Petitioners to the Bank, the Petitioners
had accepted the OTS on the terms and conditions as
mentioned in the Bank's sanction letter. In such
circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that
the terms and conditions of sanction to the OTS scheme
have to be read in its entirety and not in a piecemeal
manner which suits the Petitioners' convenience. It is
also pertinent to note here that the OTS scheme is
introduced by the Bank on the basis of the guidelines
issued by the Reserve Bank of India which are of binding
nature. The Bank is bound to follow and act in
accordance with these guidelines issued by the Reserve
Bank of India.
19. At this juncture, a reference needs to be made to
Clause No.8 of the sanction letter dated 09/11/2020 to
the OTS by the Bank. Clause No.8 states that 'Consent
terms with default clause will be filed before the
Presiding Officer of the DRT for obtaining consent
decree.' It is therefore imperative for the Petitioners to
approach the DRT in the first instance even if they are
making out a case of concluded contract. The Petitioners
are seeking enforcement of a concluded contract by this
petition. All these are issues, which ought to be raised
before the DRT in the first instance for its consideration
in accordance with law.
20. Viewed from any angle, whether in the case of
17 J-WP-3972-21-f
Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 where decree is already passed or
as in the case of Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 where the decree
is yet to be passed, the Petitioners must approach the
DRT for obtaining consent decree.
21. We have also examined the contention of learned
senior advocate that no fruitful purpose will be served by
approaching DRT as the Bank has made clear its
intention of not honouring the settlement in which case it
is not expected that the Bank will co-operate with the
Petitioners in filing the consent terms. Even if it is the
Petitioners case that the Bank will not now sign the
consent terms, still then the provisions of sub-Sections
20 and 20-A of Section 19 of the RDDB Act cannot be
overlooked which reads thus: -
"Section 19(20) : The Tribunal may, after giving
the applicant and the defendant an opportunity of
being heard, pass such interim or final order,
including the order for payment of interest from the
date on or before which payment of the amount is
found due upto the date of realisation or actual
payment, on the application as it thinks fit to meet
the ends of justice.
Section 19 (20-A) : Where it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Tribunal that the claim of the
applicant has been adjusted wholly or in part by any
lawful agreement or compromise in writing and
signed by the parties or where the defendant has
repaid or agreed to repay the claim of the applicant,
the Tribunal shall pass orders recording such
agreement, compromise or satisfaction of the claim."
22. In view of the language of sub-Section (20-A) of
Section 19 of the RDDB Act, if it is a case of the
Petitioners that there is concluded contract between the
18 J-WP-3972-21-f
parties on the basis of the settlement, it is for the
Petitioners to approach the DRT and to prove to its
satisfaction that the Petitioners having agreed to repay
the claim of the Bank as per the settlement, appropriate
orders in the light of such settlement be passed. We also
note that sub-Section (25) of Section 19 of the RDDB Act
provides that the Tribunal may make such orders and
give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to
give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process
or to secure the ends of justice. In the teeth of such
provisions, we are not inclined to entertain the petition
even before the Petitioners have approached the DRT
seeking the reliefs sought in this petition.
23. We are therefore of the opinion that it is for the
Petitioners to approach the DRT by making appropriate
application/applications for claiming the reliefs prayed for
in this petition. If such application/applications is/are
made by the Petitioners, the same shall be considered by
the DRT on its own merits and in accordance with law
without being influenced by any observations made by us
on the merits of the contention raised by either parties.
24. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
25. In view of the above, nothing survives in the Interim
Application No. 1860 of 2021 and the same stands
disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Waghmare/Choulwar
