Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2519/2021 on 7 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2519 of 2021
BETWEEN:
M/s Sri Ram Educational and
Welfare Trust and Others ...Petitioners
(By Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate)
AND:
Punjab National Bank and another ...Respondents
(Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner no.1 is a Trust, which runs
different educational institutions at Roorkee,
District Haridwar.
2. Petitioner no.1 took a term loan and also
a cash-credit limit from Punjab National Bank,
Branch B.T. Ganj, Roorkee, in which, petitioner
nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantor. Since petitioner
no.1 has defaulted in repayment of the loan,
therefore, recovery proceedings have been
imitated against the petitioners by the respondent-
Bank. In this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged a notice issued by the Bank in exercise
of powers under Section 13 (2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that default committed by petitioner no.1
is on account of lockdown imposed in view of
COVID-19, as the colleges remained closed and no
fees could be realised from students. He further
submits that petitioners are ready and willing to
repay the loan as early as possible, however due
to cash-crunch, it is not possible for them to
liquidate the loan in one go. He therefore submits
that petitioners be permitted to approach the Bank
with a proposal for restructuring of the loan and
the Competent Authority in the Bank be directed
to consider petitioner's proposal.
4. Shri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that
Bank had earlier written to the petitioners to
complete the work of documentation for
restructuring of the loan, however, despite letters,
petitioners have not responded. Thus, according to
him, petitioners themselves are to be blamed. He
further submits that on account of the lapse on the
part of the petitioners in submitting the required
documents, Bank could not consider the proposal
for restructuring of the loan. He however very
fairly submits that if petitioners submit a fresh
proposal for restructuring of the loan supported by
necessary documents within ten days and
petitioners also deposit some amount to show
their bona-fide, then the Competent Authority in
the Bank shall consider the proposal submitted by
the petitioners and pass appropriate order.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to petitioner to submit a fresh proposal for
restructuring of the loan, with necessary
documents, within a period of ten days from
today. Alongwith the proposal, petitioners shall
also deposit a sum of ` 5,00,000/- to show their
bona-fide. If such proposal is submitted by the
petitioners alongwith deposit of ` 5,00,000/-, the
Competent Authority in the Bank shall consider the
proposal and pass appropriate order, in
accordance with law as early as possible, but not
later than two weeks thereafter. In case of default
on the part of the petitioners in submitting the
proposal or depositing the amount within
stipulated time, the Bank shall be at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law.
6. Let certified copy of this order be issued
to the parties within 48 hours.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Shubham
