Orissa High Court
M/S. Shree Loknath Enterprises ... vs Union Bank Of India And Others on 22 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.220 of 2010
M/s. Shree Loknath Enterprises and .... Petitioners
another
-versus-
Union Bank of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kartika Kumar Khuntia
(Petitioner No.2) in person
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. A.K. Mishra,
Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
JUDGMENT
22.11.2022
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. The present petition seeks review of a judgment dated 30th July
2010 passed by this Court dismissing the Petitioners' W.P.(C)
No.9875 of 2007.
2. The said writ petition was filed primarily against Opposite
Party No.1-Union Bank of India assailing a decision taken in the
course of a 'joint discussion' held between the parties on 2nd
August, 2006.
3. Pursuant to the sanctioning of cash credit limit of Rs.4,00,000/-
with 30% margin with rate of interest of 17% per annum by the
Opposite Party No.1-Bank in favour of the proprietary concerned
(Petitioner No.1) for the purpose of manufacturing PVC doors and
windows, a tripartite agreement was executed between the
Petitioners, the Bank and Orissa State Financial Corporation
(OSFC) (Opposite Party No.2). In terms of the said tripartite
agreement, OSFC sanctioned a term loan and an additional term
loan and cyclone loan to the tune of Rs.11.71 lakhs on receipt of
mortgage of immovable property.
4. The Petitioners are supposed to have subsequently prayed for
enhancement of the cash credit limit. However, by this time, they
had already defaulted in payment. Accordingly, the Bank
informed them that unless the defaulted amount is paid, request
for enhancement of cash credit limit could not be considered.
5. Due to alleged mismanagement of the cash credit limit, the
Petitioner No.1-Unit was declared as a non-performing asset
(NPA) and recovery measures were sought to be initiated.
6. The Petitioners' first W.P.(C) No.4395 of 2002 was disposed of
by this Court on 27th July 2005 recording the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the amount
withheld by the Bank shall be considered for release in favour of
Petitioner No.1-Unit on the basis of the Small Scale Industries
Policies and Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and
the National Equity and Funds Scheme issued by the Small
Industries Development Bank of India. On this basis, the
Petitioners were permitted by this Court to submit a representation
to the Bank and OSFC and the Opposite Parties were to take a
decision thereon and till such decision was taken, they were
restrained from taking any action under the SARFAESI Act.
7. It is pursuant to the above direction that a joint discussion was
held on 2nd August 2006 in the presence of the officials of the
OSFC, the Bank and Petitioner No.2-Sri Kartika Kumar Khuntia,
the power of attorney holder and authorized representative of
Petitioner No.1.
8. In the judgment dated 30th July 2010, the review of which is
sought, it was noted by this Court that the joint discussion held on
2nd August 2006, revealed that the Bank was reluctant to advance
any further loan in the absence of additional security and margin.
The OSFC was agreeable for re-phasement of the loan, but the
request for waiver of interest was not acceded to. The Court
declined to issue any direction to the Bank to consider the case of
the Petitioners for grant of additional term loan when admittedly
there had been a default on the part of the Petitioners to pay dues
of the Bank. Consequently, the direction given by this Court was
to permit the Petitioners to submit an application before the OSFC
for re-phasement of the outstanding dues and for it to be
considered by the OSFC. It was noted by this Court that this
direction was consistent with what the Petitioners had agreed in
the course of the joint discussion held on 2nd August, 2006.
9. Petitioner No.2, Sri Khuntia, who appeared in person, and
argued the review petition, did not dispute that the Petitioners
were yet to approach OSFC with any application for re-
phasement. Among the grounds urged in the review petition is
that the submissions of the Petitioners which had been set out in
paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Misc. Case No.8482 of 2008 should be
considered by this Court. The Court has perused the said
paragraphs. Apart from pleading the bad financial condition and
the difficulty faced by the Petitioners in repaying the loan
amounts, only vague averments have been made regarding the
conduct of the Opposite Parties.
10. In matters of this nature which involve disputed questions of
fact, and with the default committed by the Petitioners in repaying
the loans not being in dispute, the scope of interference by the
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is indeed limited.
11. The Court is unable to find any ground for review of the
judgment dated 30th July 2010 passed by this Court dismissing the
Petitioners' W.P.(C) No.9875 of 2007. Consequently, the review
petition is dismissed.
(S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. K. Guin/PA
