WP(C)No.1976 of 2024 and I.A. no.2695 of 2024
1. Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client is borrower. He hands up a chart showing the account was
declared a Non Performing Asset (NPA) of the bank on 1st October, 2018 at amount of ₹21,79,290.92/-. Subsequent thereto and till 10th November,
2023 his client has deposited aggregate ₹13,50,000/-. This is his client’s bonafide in seeking to liquidate the outstanding. In the meantime he had
moved this Court by WP(C) no.40868 of 2023. Co-ordinate Bench made order dated 20th December, 2023 for his representation on one time
settlement to be considered by the bank. Text of the order is reproduced below.
“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
2. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of this Petition seeking liberty for the Petitioner to file an application before the
Opposite Parties-Bank for consideration of One Time Settlement of the outstanding dues towards the loan availed by the Petitioner.
3. Granting the liberty as aforesaid, this Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.â€
The bank has not dealt with his representation but has proceeded to hold auction tomorrow (23rd February, 2024). That is why moving of the petition
has become exceptionally urgent before this Bench, in absence of the regular Bench.
2. He relies on his client’s application (I.A. no.2695 of 2024), in which is disclosed communication dated 7th February, 2024 made by the bank to
his client demanding recovery of ₹25,43,757.91/-, failing which auction of the secured property to be held on 23rd February, 2024 at reserved price of
₹63,00,000/-. He submits, there be interim protection.
3. Mr. Biswal learned advocate appears and submits, he has instructions from the bank to oppose the writ petition. He will file his power shortly. He
submits, true it is that there was made said order dated 20th December, 2023 but petitioner applied without tendering 10% of the dues. Hence, his
representation stood rejected straightaway. On query from Court he prays for adjournment to demonstrate the intimation of rejection duly made.
4. It appears from said order dated 20th December, 2023, the bank was represented. By the order liberty was granted to petitioner to file application
before the bank for consideration of one time settlement of the outstanding dues towards the loan obtained. There is no mention about condition of
deposit. In the circumstances, Court needs to ascertain whether the rejection was on merit or because of omission to deposit earnest money, not
mentioned in said order. As an interim measure Court will not interfere with holding of the auction but finalization thereof is not to be without leave of
this Court. It is made clear, the bank will be obliged to notify bidders at the auction regarding pendency of the writ petition.
5. List as per convenience of the regular Bench.
6. Parties are to act on website copy of our order.
..………………………………
