9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank) to accept the compromise amount offered by the petitioners which had been approved by the officers of the bank and the committee constituted by the bank for rehabilitation of sick units. The three petitioners are sister concerns and had taken loans by way of advance from the bank. The admitted facts are that petitioner No. 1 Thakur Steel Tubes Limited had availed of a loan of Rs. 40 lakhs from the respondent-bank against facility of cash credit hypothecation on October 27, 1980, with interest at the rate of 19 per cent, per annum on daily balance with quarterly rests. As the petitioners did not adhere to financial discipline, the petitioner defaulted in the repayment of the loan amount. Ultimately the respondent-bank filed a Civ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Rs. 15.10 per cent, per annum on March 4, 1994. According to the respondent, the total amount recoverable from the three petitioners comes to Rs. 5 crores approximately. The petitioners have averred that they approached the Rehabilitation Cell of the respondent-bank on December 11, 1993, forwarding therewith a proposal for repayment of the dues of the captioned units. The respondent-bank, vide their letter dated February 28, 1994, advised the petitioners that their compromise offer of Rs. 18 lakhs and Rs. 35 lakhs against the present outstanding (without accrued interest from the date of filing of the civil suit) of Rs. 30.56 lakhs and Rs. 52.22 lakhs in the case of H. R. Gupta Industries and Thakur Steel Tubes Limited respectively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be on a very lower side. The petitioners were advised to enhance the offer to a reasonable level so that their proposal may again be put up to the higher authorities. Meanwhile, the petitioners were requested to repay the bank's entire dues quickly. In response to this communication the petitioners wrote a letter annexure P-14 dated March 11, 1996, increasing the compromise proposal from Rs. 1.10 crores to Rs. 1.15 crores. The offer made by the petitioners increasing the compromise amount by Rs. 5 lakhs, i.e., from Rs. 1.10 crores to Rs. 1.15 crores towards settlement of the entire amount was rejected, vide communication dated June 11, 1996, annexure P-17. Thereafter, the impugned letter annexure P-19 dated June 18, 1996, written by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent-bank did not accept the offer made by the petitioners. The compromise proposal given by the petitioners was never accepted by the respondent-bank. In its communication dated July 31, 1995, annexure P-8 the respondent-bank had clearly stated that it appreciates the concern of the petitioners for stalling their accounts and that their compromise proposal had been forwarded to the higher authorities which was under their consideration but nowhere it had committed by which it could be said that the proposal made by the petitioners was accepted/acceptable to the bank. Mere deposit of Rs. 63 lakhs towards the amount due during the period the negotiations were going on between the parties would in no way create an estoppel against the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
