9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Writ petition under article 226/227 to quash inter-departmental communication and direct bank to accept compromise amount. 2. Default in loan repayment by three petitioner sister concerns leading to civil suits and decrees against them. 3. Petitioners' proposal for compromise rejected by the bank. 4. Impugned communication from Assistant General Manager directing recovery through asset sale. 5. Maintainability of writ petition against inter-departmental communication. Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash an inter-departmental communication and a mandamus to compel the bank to accept a compromise amount. The bank had filed civil suits against the petitioners for loan defaults. The total amount due was approximately Rs. 5 crores. The petitioners' compromise offer was initially deemed low by the bank, leading to negotiations and increased offers, culminating in rejection of the final proposal. 2. The three petitioners had defaulted on loans from the bank, resulting in civil suits and decrees against them. The amounts due were significant, with interest accruing over time. The bank had taken legal action to recover the outstanding sums from the petitioners, which led to the negotiation for a compromise settlement. 3. Despite negotiations and depositing Rs. 63 lakhs during discussions, the petitioners' compromise proposal was ultimately rejected by the bank. The bank's communication indicated that the offer was considered insufficient, prompting the bank to proceed with recovery actions, including the sale of assets. 4. The impugned communication from the Assistant General Manager directed the recovery of the entire amount from the petitioners through the sale of their assets, rejecting the compromise offer. The petitioners challenged this decision, citing their efforts to settle the dues and the bank's initial consideration of a compromise. 5. The court found the writ petition not maintainable against an inter-departmental communication regarding the execution of decrees for loan recovery. The communication did not constitute a challengeable order against the petitioners. The court upheld the bank's right to reject the compromise offer and proceed with legal actions to recover the outstanding amounts. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the bank was not obligated to accept the compromise offer and had the right to pursue recovery through legal means. The court found no merit in the petition and declined to award costs.
|
