9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned order of rejection by the respondent bank. 2. Whether the petitioner could compel the respondent to accept his proposal for one-time settlement in terms of RBI Guidelines. 3. Relief, if any, to be granted to the petitioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Impugned Order of Rejection: The petitioner challenged the respondent bank's rejection of his proposal for one-time settlement of his late father's company's debts under RBI guidelines for non-performing assets. The bank's rejection was based on two reasons: the offered amount of Rs. 40.51 lakhs was too low compared to the value of securities, and the proposal was received after the RBI's deadline of 30-6-2001. The petitioner argued that these reasons were unsustainable and that the bank's refusal to apply the RBI guidelines was arbitrary. The petitioner also contended that he was not given an opportunity to explain his position before the bank. 2. Compulsion to Accept Proposal in Terms of RBI Guidelines: The respondent bank argued that the petitioner's request was made beyond the prescribed time in the RBI guidelines, which were operative only up to 31-6-2001. The petitioner made the request on 21-7-2001, and it was rightly rejected. The bank also stated that the petitioner's father had defaulted on loans, and various recovery proceedings were initiated, including a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioner had previously filed multiple proceedings to stall the sale of mortgaged properties, and his conduct was deemed fraudulent and a deliberate attempt to screen assets. The bank contended that the RBI guidelines do not cover cases of willful default, fraud, and malfeasance, and the petitioner's case fell under these categories. 3. Relief to the Petitioner: The court noted that the RBI guidelines issued on 27-7-2000 were in force until 30-6-2001 and did not cover cases of willful default, fraud, and malfeasance. The petitioner's request was made after the guidelines had expired, and the amount offered was far below the prescribed standard formula for settlement. The court found that the petitioner, his father, and his brother had repeatedly proposed settlements but failed to comply with the agreed terms, demonstrating a lack of bona fide intention. The court also highlighted the fraudulent conduct of the petitioner in alienating mortgaged properties and making false representations. Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondent bank could not be compelled to accept the petitioner's offer or settle the dues under the RBI guidelines, as the petitioner's application was belated, and he was guilty of willful default, fraud, and malfeasance. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to claim benefits under the RBI guidelines, and no duty or obligation existed on the part of the respondent bank to accept the belated payment. Judgment: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected WPMP was also dismissed.
|
