M/S Dhoat Kissan Sewa Centre And ... vs Ld. District Magistrate And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16457 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126820-DB




110
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CWP-13478-2023
                                              Date of decision: 21.09.2023

M/S DHOAT KISSAN SEWA CENTRE AND ANOTHER

                                                        .....PETITIONERS

                                    Versus

LD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS
                                                       .....RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present:     Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate,
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Sandeep Jain, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

             Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate
             for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

LISA GILL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for directing the respondent-Bank

to regularize Cash Credit Account of the petitioners as it is stated that they

are ready to deposit the overdue instalments in terms of judgment of this

High Court passed in 'M/s Amar Alloys Private Limited Vs. State Bank of

India 2019(3) PLR 81'. It is further prayed that operation of notice dated

18.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) should be stayed.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 availed cash credit limit

for a sum of Rs.20 lacs in the year 2013. Petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of

petitioner No.1. The amount due was statedly being paid regularly upto

June, 2022. Thereafter, due to some unavoidable circumstances, there was

financial indiscipline on the part of petitioner No.1. Proceedings under the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126820-DB

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short SARFAESI Act) were initiated by

the respondent-Bank after declaring account of the petitioners to be Non

Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.11.2021. Notice under Section 13(2) of the

SARFAESI Act on 10.02.2023 raising the demand of Rs.22,13,524/- was

issued.

3. It is submitted that petitioners on receipt of notice dated

10.02.2023 immediately approached the respondent-Bank while submitting

that on 21.12.2022, amount due was Rs.19,82,209/- whereas in notice dated

10.02.2023, it was mentioned to be Rs.22,13,524/-. It is submitted that

petitioners have pointed out this irregularity but no action was taken despite

petitioners further agreeing to pay the amount in accordance with applicable

regulations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of

arguments, submitted that petitioners are ready for One Time Settlement

while depositing a sum of Rs.18 lacs within the time period as may be

allowed by the respondent-Bank. However, learned counsel for the

respondent-Bank submits that the total outstanding due as on today is

Rs.27,15,000/-. The Bank is ready to accept 10% less than the said amount

within a period of two months, however, their account cannot be

regularized/made standard as the account had been recalled. This offer is not

acceptable to the petitioners and it is insisted that account of the petitioners

should be regularized/made standard.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the file, but do not find any ground to interfere in this matter in

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126820-DB

6. It is settled position of law that no borrower has a vested right

to seek One Time Settlement as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'The

Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and others vs. Meenal

Aggarwal and others, 2022 AIR (SC) 56'. Moreover it has been held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai)

Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023, decided on

21.09.2023 that correct position of law has not been laid out in the case of

M/s Amar Alloys (supra).

7. In the given circumstances, it is not for this Court to rewrite the

terms and conditions of the contract between the parties, while issuing a

direction to the respondents to settle for particular terms.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,

present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail the

remedy/remedies as available to them in accordance with law.

9. However, it is always open to the parties to arrive at any

mutually acceptable settlement.

                                                        (LISA GILL)
                                                           JUDGE



21.09.2023                                           (RITU TAGORE)
pj                                                       JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:        Yes/No
             Whether reportable:               Yes/No




                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126820-DB

                                   3 of 3