Smt. Saroja K.(Prop.) & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2266 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             LPA No. 257/2009

        SMT. SAROJA K.(PROP.) & ORS.                ..... Appellants
                        Through:  Mr. S.R. Singh, Advocate.

                        versus

        GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.                ..... Respondents
                       Through:   Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for
                                  Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                       ORDER

% 26.05.2009

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single

Judge dated 27th March, 2009.

2. The appellants (original petitioners in the writ petition) sought

a direction in the writ petition to the respondents (original

respondents in the writ petition) to settle, in accordance with the One

Time Settlement Scheme (in short 'OTS Scheme') formulated by Delhi

Financial Corporation (in short 'DFC'). The appellant had been

sanctioned a term loan by DFC. Since there was default in payment

of installments to service the loan, DFC issued a notice to the

appellant. The appellant thereafter sought permission from DFC to

sell the machinery which was granted. The Assistant Collector

(Recovery) passed an order attaching the salaries of the guarantors

who are appellants Nos. 2 and 3 in the present proceedings. They

preferred an appeal to the Collector which was pending when they

filed the writ petition in this Court. The Court had, after issuance of

notice stayed the impugned order of attachment.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the DFC filed an

application for direction, stating about the formulation of OTS

Scheme on 26th February, 2004. As per the DFC, the outstanding

balance as on 25th March, 2000 of the appellant was

Rs.10,70,422.40/-, excluding the interest. As per the OTS Scheme,

the appellant had to pay Rs. 4,59,543.43/- to settle the matter fully

and finally. The DFC further contended that the appellant had been

called for negotiations sometime in 2005 but she failed to avail of the

offer. It was also stated on behalf of DFC that if the appellant

approached the DFC, her case shall be reviewed under the OTS

Scheme. The learned single Judge rightly held that in view of

averments made in the application moved by DFC, the liabilities of

the appellant had been vastly reduced and DFC was willing to

consider the appellant's request for settlement. In view of the same

and taking into account the health of the appellant as also the

generally prevailing economic conditions, the learned single Judge

disposed of the writ petition directing the DFC to consider the

appellant's request sympathetically and extend the OTS Scheme to

enable settlement of its dues by the appellant.

4. It was now sought to be contended by the appellant that she

was entitled to a settlement under the OTS Scheme 2001 and not

under OTS Scheme 2004.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to

OTS Scheme 2001 at page-17 of the paper book. One of the

conditions in the said scheme was that the proposal had to be

submitted by the applicant along with a demand draft/pay order

equivalent to 25% of outstanding dues as on date. The learned

counsel for the respondents then referred to the application of the

appellant under the OTS Scheme 2001 at page-19 of the paper book.

In the said application, there was no mention of the proposal to

deposit equivalent of 25% of the outstanding dues along with the

application. Thus, as per the counsel for the respondents, the

appellant was not found complying with the conditions stipulated

under the OTS Scheme of 2001 and there was no question of

considering its case under the said scheme.

6. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge,

which is a fair, reasonable, just and equitable order giving an

opportunity to the appellant to apply under the OTS Scheme of 2004.

As per the DFC, in their averments have been made before the

learned single Judge if the appellant were to apply under the said

scheme for settlement, her liabilities would be vastly reduced and the

request for settlement would be considered.

7. Accordingly, the appeal must fail. The appeal is dismissed. All

applications stand disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 26, 2009 sb