Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 324 (MAD)

V. Srinivasan v. Indian Bank

2001-03-13

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2001
Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, the writ petitioners prays for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of he first respondent in their letter dated 6.1.2001 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to accept the settlement proposal offered by the petitioner in terms of the circular BP.BC.11/ 21.1.040/99-00 dated 27.7.2000. 2. This is one more case in which the petitioner/debtor is aggrieved by the reaction of the respondent/banks in the context of the Instructions issued by the Reserve Bank in their circular dated 27.7.2000 in B.P.B.C. 11/21.01.040/99-00. The said guideline relates to the facility offered to the debtors to make one time payment. It is not disputed that in this case a suit is pending before the Civil Court. In terms of paragraph 3A(c) the Reserve Bank had made it clear that the guidelines will also cover cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of having offered to pay the amounts due as one time settlement in terms of the circular, the respondent bank has simply reacted negatively and the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no alternative remedy except to approach this Court. 3. I have been consistently holding that in these matters, the Courts/Tribunals have ample powers to entertain such petitions and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, there is no need to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the terms of para 3A(c) of the Instructions referred to above, it is the Courts/DRTs/BIFR who are the proper authorities who have to be moved. 4. It is also a matter of regret that banks which are governed by the Reserve Bank Regulations, for no justifiable reason reject the application of the petitioner without affording any proper reason. When they are bound by the Instructions of the Reserve Bank, the Banks have a duty to comply with the Instructions. If they feel that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief for any justifiable reason, they have to say so by a reasoned order. The Banks cannot behave in an arbitrary manner and drive the parties from pillar to post. If they feel that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief for any justifiable reason, they have to say so by a reasoned order. The Banks cannot behave in an arbitrary manner and drive the parties from pillar to post. Therefore, the Courts/Tribunals should take active steps to direct the Banks to comply with the Reserve Bank Regulations/Instructions and to grant decrees or pass orders in terms of the Instructions. The powers of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as well as of the Civil Court under Section 9, C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. are wide enough to entertain such petitions and also to direct the implementation of the Reserve Bank’s regulations and instructions which are binding on the banks. Therefore, the petitioner is free to approach the Court/Tribunal in this context for the same relief. If either the Banks refuse to comply with the directions of the Reserve Bank for no proper reason or if the Tribunal or the Courts do not enforce the implementation of such binding instructions, then it would be leaving no other alternative to this Court except to pass appropriate orders directing the Banks to implement the Reserve Bank’s instructions provided the parties have forwarded the proposals within the stipulated date and also direct the Courts and Tribunal to grant decrees in terms of the instructions. 5. With the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.