Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1510 (PNJ)

Bank of India v. State of Haryana

2013-11-19

Augustine George Masih, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.: (Oral) - The tractor loan was granted by the petitioner-Bank to respondents No. 3 and 4 of Rs.1.30 lacs on 23.11.1994 at the then prevailing rate of interest of 15.5% with half yearly rests. There were defaults in repayments and consequently the petitioner filed a claim under Section 8 A, 8(i), 3(5) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) seeking recovery of the then principal amount outstanding alongwith interest. 2. On account of the defaults in repayment of the loan, the account was declared as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 25.9.1995 and thus, thereafter interest was payable but not debited in the account. The petitioner filed a certificate dated 30.1.2001 certifying that a sum of Rs.1,25,317-99 was payable as uncharged accrued interest against the loan account from 25.9.1995 to 30.9.2000 in addition to the amount showed in the certified copy of the statement of account under the Bankers Book Evidence Act of Rs.1,12,439-01. 3. The claim of the petitioner was decided by the impugned order dated 28.2.2001, in terms whereof only the amount in the statement of account has been allowed without allowing past, pendente lite or future interest. 4. The grievance made in the present petition is that the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jagadhri failed to take into account the concept of NPA for grant of the past interest from the date the account was declared as NPA till institution of the claim. It has been explained that an asset is treated as a non performing asset so long as it generates income expected from it, but when it fails to generate income, it becomes an NPA. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued certain guidelines for treating credit facility as NPA from the Accounting Year 1992-93 on the basis of recommendation of the Narsimham Committee. The interest in such a case is not debited to the account, but is payable and it is not as if declaration of the account as a NPA waives interest. 5. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued certain guidelines for treating credit facility as NPA from the Accounting Year 1992-93 on the basis of recommendation of the Narsimham Committee. The interest in such a case is not debited to the account, but is payable and it is not as if declaration of the account as a NPA waives interest. 5. The endeavour of the petitioner through an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking correction of the order claiming the amount of past, pendente lite and future interest was, however, not successful when application was rejected on 29.5.2001 by observing that decision had been rendered on the basis of application filed and there was no reference to interest in the statement of account. 6. We may note that the RBI has circulated Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances wherein an NPA has been defined as an asset including a leased asset which becomes a non performing when it ceases to generate income for the bank. Qua credit facility in respect of which the interest and/or installment of principal has remained past due for a specified period, would be an NPA. Agricultural advances are to be treated as NPA after it has become past due for two harvest seasons for a period not exceeding 2½ years. We may clarify that past due was on amount which was not being paid within thirty days, but this concept was dispensed with from 31.3.2001 onwards by laying down different parameters. However, with effect from 31.3.2004, a 90 days overdue norm for identification of NPA has been adopted as per international best practices. 7. We are thus, unable to accept the conclusion as per the impugned order that merely because the account has become NPA and the interest is not debited to the statement of account as due and payable, the recovery proceedings under the said Act cannot take place qua the amount of interest due till the filing of the claim. 8. The issue of pendente lite and future interest has also remained unaddressed in the impugned orders. Suffice to say, as per Section 8, the order passed by the prescribed authority is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and would be executable in the same manner as a decree of such court. 9. 8. The issue of pendente lite and future interest has also remained unaddressed in the impugned orders. Suffice to say, as per Section 8, the order passed by the prescribed authority is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and would be executable in the same manner as a decree of such court. 9. We are thus, of the view that in the light of what we have observed aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 28.2.2001 and 29.5.2001 are set aside and the SDO would have to apply mind afresh in view of our aforesaid observations. 10. We are informed that the principal amount already stands paid. The dispute is quite old. Thus, in case the respondents pay the interest amount as claimed upto the date of the application within one month from today, the controversy would rest without any further adjudication and the claim would be treated as satisfied, failing which the SDO would have to take steps to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in terms of what we have observed aforesaid. 11. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------