Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 805 (CAL)

Mohan General Trading Co. v. United Bank of India

2012-08-27

DIPANKAR DATTA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners shall be retained with the records. The petitioners had obtained loan advanced by the respondent No. 1/Bank. It had defaulted in repaying the loan. Demand notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 8.6.2009 was issued. In due course of time, the Bank proposed to take measures u/s 13(4) of the Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction had been approached by the petitioners u/s 17(1) of the Act. The application is reportedly pending. 2. At this stage, the petitioners had approached the Bank for restructuring of the credit limit. Proposal to that effect was given by letters dated 16.12.2010 and 19.7.2011. On 20.10.2011, the Bank informed the petitioner No. 1 that its competent authority was agreeable and had sanctioned the restructuring proposal as per terms and conditions enclosed therewith as Annexure-I. The petitioner No. 1 was requested to accept the terms and conditions and to submit relevant papers/undertakings to enable the Bank allow operation in the account. The terms and conditions in Annexure-I, inter alia, referred to written approval to be obtained by the petitioners from the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation and the Tribunal before whom the application u/s 17(1) of the Act was pending. They were also required to give an undertaking to settle the issue of M/s. Shilpa Creation Pvt. Ltd. (Group Company) as per the approved compromise settlement, if any, failing which the sanctioned restructuring proposal would stand rejected. 3. Correspondence followed pursuant to such sanction. By letter dated 20.12.2011, the petitioners prayed for modification. Ultimately by letter dated 21.3.2012, it was conveyed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 that the terms and conditions for restructuring are being accepted and that the same may be implemented without any further loss of time, which would serve the mutual interest of both the creditor and the borrower. 4. Close on the heels of the said letter, the Bank by letter dated 3.4.2012 informed the petitioners, inter alia, as follows: We observed that you have failed to fulfil the terms and conditions as stipulated in our letter. Such, the competent authority of our Bank has decided to cancel the said restructuring package. You are hereby advised to deposit the full dues of the Bank along with up to date due interest. 5. Such, the competent authority of our Bank has decided to cancel the said restructuring package. You are hereby advised to deposit the full dues of the Bank along with up to date due interest. 5. The petitioners objected to cancellation of the restructuring package by sending a notice demanding justice dated 9th April, 2012. The Bank did not respond favourably. On the other hand, the Bank issued a fresh demand notice u/s 13(2) of the Act dated 20.4.2012 calling upon the petitioners to discharge in full the liability amounting to Rs. 12,13,73,393.20. The petitioners through their learned Advocate duly responded to the demand notice and claimed that the Bank had acted illegally. The Bank did not accept the claim raised by the petitioners and has proceeded to issue notice of sale dated 2.8.2012. Such notice has been brought on record by the supplementary affidavit, referred to above. The petitioners have also taken out an application for amendment of the writ petition being G.A. No. 2160 of 2012. 6. I have heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Basu, learned Advocate for the Bank. 7. The application for amendment of the writ petition stands allowed, for, the nature and character of the lis is not altered thereby and the amendment is necessary for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Let amended writ petition, duly verified, be filed by a week. 8. It does not, however, appear from the writ petition that the petitioners have obtained approval either from the Corporation or the Tribunal in seisin of the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioners before it. It also does not appear that the petitioners have approached the Court with utmost expedition after being informed of the decision of the Bank cancelling the restructuring package. Once the Bank has taken measure u/s 13(4) of the Act, the Writ Court would not ordinarily interfere and grant interim relief. Prima facie, I do not see any reason to grant interim relief as prayed for. Prayer for interim order stands refused. 9. However, the writ petition shall be heard on affidavits. 10. The respondents may file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, may be filed by two weeks thereafter. 11. Prima facie, I do not see any reason to grant interim relief as prayed for. Prayer for interim order stands refused. 9. However, the writ petition shall be heard on affidavits. 10. The respondents may file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, may be filed by two weeks thereafter. 11. The writ petition shall be treated as ready for hearing on expiry of the period mentioned hereinabove for exchange of affidavits and thereafter the parties shall be at liberty to mention it for hearing before the appropriate Bench. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.