9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the SARFAESI Act - held that:- It is not a case where the Company has approached this Court after the notice under section 13(2) was issued. The Company challenged the action under section 13(2) only after the notice under section 13(4) was issued and that too after reasons for raising demand were communicated. The Company cannot be permitted to challenge part of the action when the financial institutions have proceeded ahead to recover possession of the secured assets in terms of section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In terms of the judgments aforesaid, the remedy of the Company is to approach DRT in terms of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Government of India has enacted “The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006” on June 16, 2006 which was notified on 2-10-2006. The MSMED Act, 2006 has modified the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises engaged in manufacturing or production and providing or rendering of services. As per the said Act, a small enterprise is an enterprise where the investment in plant and machinery is more than ₹ 25 lakhs but does not exceed ₹ 5 crore; and a medium enterprise is an enterprise where the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 3.28 crores and that of IFCI was 26.27 per cent amounting to Rs. 2.43 crores. 3. The Company submitted an application for registration of the Company as a sick company with Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) constituted under the Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ( the SICA ) on 28-10-1994. Such application was declined on 6-12-1994 for the reason that the 5 years have not elapsed from the commencement of the commercial production. On completion of five years from the date of commercial production, the Company again sought intervention of the BIFR and on 2-1-1998, the BIFR declared the Company as a sick Company. The Company was directed to submit a package in terms of section 17(2) of the SICA. It was on 16-10-1999, the Company submitted a revival package in consultation with ICICI Bank Ltd. The BIFR approved reconciliation package of the Company on 27-12-1999. The order passed by the BIFR envisages the payment of the entire amount of principal and 20 per cent simple interest as on 31-3-1999 and interest at the rate of 15 per cent from 1-4-1999 up to the date of settlement. The relevant extracts from the order read as under : 3. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to pay outstanding dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,29,92,998.08 as on 30-4-2004. The petitioner is further entitled to interest from May, 2004 till the amount is liquidated. The statement of claims in respect of the five loan accounts were detailed in Annexure P-3. It is pleaded that the petitioner has served a statutory notice dated 30-4-2004. In reply dated 17-5-2004, the Company asserted that the notice is bad and invalid and has been issued with suppressed facts and bias. The Company denies liability of the payment of the alleged sum of Rs. 3,29,92,998.08. 8. M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed CA No. 456 of 2005 as an assignee of ICICI Bank Ltd. to be substituted as petitioner. The said application was allowed by this Court on 25-5-2006. It was observed that the question of maintainability of the petition for winding up is required to be decided at the time of its decision and not at the time of disposing of the miscellaneous application. 9. Earlier, the petition for winding up was ordered to be admitted on 26-5-2005 as the company did not file any reply or written statement, in spite of opportunities granted. An application for withdrawal of admission b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-3-2001 as well. In the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31-3-2003 (15th Annual Report Annexure R.4), the secured loan as per Schedule-C is stated to be Rs. 8,72,00,000. The 16th Annual Report, Annexure R.5 is for the year ending 31-3-2004, the secured loan as per Schedule-C of such report is Rs. 8,02,01,700. Though in the written statement, the Company has denied that it is indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 2,38,46,263 towards the principal amount and Rs. 91,46,735.08 towards interest, but the Company has not attached any document or the statement of accounts that payments due to the secured creditor has been discharged in its entirety or that the account has been settled. 12. The M/s Dhir Dhir Asset and Securitization Company Limited subsequently renamed as Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as The Alchemist ), as an assignees of IFCI and IDBI - the other secured creditors, initiated proceedings against the Company under the SARFAESI Act. The Company filed CA No. 526 of 2009 in the petition for winding up for restraining Alchemist from proceedings as an assignee of the IDBI and IFCI. The Alchemist also filed an application CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings and intended to realize its security outside winding up instead of relinquishing its security and proving its debt. The Company in its reply to the CA No. 530 of 2009, dated 14-10-2009 stated in para (C) : C. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1-Company CCHL has already paid a sum of about Rs. 12.80 crore to the original lenders (ICICI, IFCI, IDBI) against loan of about Rs. 9.25 crore. This amount of Rs. 12.80 crore include payment of about Rs. 11.01 crore paid by CCHL after the liability was freshly fixed as Rs. 11.78 crore by the BIFR. When the RBI s OTS guidelines came into operation in 2005, the Company applied for OTS under the same. The original lenders never rejected the OTS application. However, they kept avoiding to furnish the details and extracts from their books as per Bankers Book Evidence Act showing as to how they had adjusted and appropriated amongst themselves the various payments made by the Company to them from time to time. They did not reconcile the accounts. In the absence of requisite details from the lenders, the Company calculated the dues as per the RBI s guidelines for OTs by taking into consideration the date of 1-4-1993 on which one memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 1-4-1993 and demanding Rs. 396 lakhs as full and final payment of their dues. The IFCI replied vide letter dated 23-3-2006, classifying the Company s account as doubtful NPA as on 31-3-1995 and demanded Rs. 465.66 lakhs as full and final payment of their dues. The Company replied to IDBI s and IFCI s letters vide letter dated 21-5-2006 and 22-5-2006 respectively, wherein the Company raised grievance that the amount demanded by IDBI and IFCI in their letters dated 21-4-2006 and 23-3-2006 respectively were worked out by ignoring the clarifications given by the State Bank of India, Mumbai to its officers on the said RBI OTS circular. The Company participated in a joint meeting called by IDBI on 19-6-2006. In this Joint Meeting, IFCI and KMBL were also present to discuss the OTS. During the meeting the members of the consortium were asked to send a statement of the apportionment of the dues and payment that had been made by the Company, so that a final proposal could be presented to the consortium members, after applying the RBI Guidelines. In view of RBI s Guidelines and Circulars, which have statutory force, the proposals of the FIs were not sound and valid. The Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 20-3-2008, the IFCI assigned the debt to Dhir Dhir Asset Reconstruction Securitization Company Ltd. The same was objected by the Company. The Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court, before whom the order of Single Judge (Company Court) admitting the winding up petition was challenged on 7-4-2008, dismissed the appeal of the Company vide order dated 1-8-2008 on the ground of delay. On the basis of this order of Division Bench, the Company Court vide order dated 7-8-2008 passed an order for publication regarding the factum of admission. Being aggrieved, the Company is in the process of filing appeal in the Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court, against order dated 7-8-2008. As such the amounts mentioned herein should not be taken as admission of any liability on the part of the Company over and above Rs. 2,62,126 as the matter is still sub-judice. As stated above, matters being sub-judice, interest and other charges on Secured Loans in the Accounts being unascertainable as on date, write back/provisions of the same will be made as and when the matters are finally settled. The said note is in fact, the entire stand of the Company in the present proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out obtaining a licence from the RBI. It is pleaded by the petitioner-Company that the loan amount disbursed by Consortium of Banks with ICICI being lead institution was Rs. 9,25,66,743. It is also pleaded that the Company made several payments to the Financial Institutions, but due to market forces and reasons beyond the Company s control, it defaulted in making payments. The Company made the following payments up to 31-3-1993 : To ICICI Rs. 50,95,696 To IDBI Rs. 36,76,745 To IFCI Rs. 22,51,963 Rs. 1,10,24,404 In addition to said amounts, another sum of Rs. 43,00,000 is paid to ICICI on 24-4-1993. 20. In para No. 43 of the writ petition, the following details regarding amount payable, amount actually paid, amount deemed to be paid and balance payable, have been given, which read as under : Amount payable as on 1-4-1993 as per RBI s OTS Guidelines Amount actually paid after 1-4-1993 Amount deemed paid after 1-4-1993 Balance payable A B C A-C IDBI 3,96,00,000 2,11,63,180 3,64,11,967 31,88,03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it an acceptable proposal to the creditors to be received by them by 4-7-2006. The minutes of the meeting were sent to the petitioner by IDBI on 23-6-2006, but the petitioner disputed such minutes primarily on the ground of insertion of clause regarding requisite details of the various payments made by the petitioner. The company allegedly submitted One Time Settlement application on 1-7-2006 and calculation of Rs. 2.62 lakhs as per RBI s guidelines and requested the financial institutions to settle the alleged dues accordingly. It is stand of the Company that such request for one time settlement was never rejected by the financial institutions. The Company filed a suit before the Delhi High Court that the Company is liable to pay Rs. 2,62,126. Such suit was withdrawn on 17-8-2006. The Company is said to have filed CWP Nos. 4719 and 4732 of 2007 before this Court to settle dues as per RBI s circulars but the same were withdrawn on 29-3-2007 with liberty to avail other remedy in accordance with law. IFCI claimed a sum of Rs. 465.66 lakhs vide its letter dated 30-4-2007. The company filed an inter-pleader suit before District Court, Delhi on 10-5-2007 for obtaining a decision as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious contentions, the Company offered only Rs. 2.62 lakhs to all the lenders put together. The said affidavit is accompanied by the calculations sheet of interest reflecting the interest chargeable and the amount received from the company from time to time. 24. The Alchemist has filed another counter affidavit, wherein reliance has been placed upon an order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [2010] 8 SCC 110 and Transcore v. Union of India [2008] 1 SCC 125 1 , in support of the plea that the Company is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. It is stated in the affidavit that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the availability of efficacious and statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act. It is also pleaded that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the Company has filed writ petition No. 17151 of 2009, which was withdrawn with liberty to avail other remedy. In pursuance of such liberty, IA No. 708 of 2009 in OA No. 57 of 2008, was filed by it against the Company and amongst others for recovery of its due. The learned DRT has declined to pass any interim order in the said mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na High Court Writ Petition seeking direction to the lenders to calculate the dues as per RBI OTS guidelines. Dismissed as withdrawn on 27-11-2009. 10. I.A. No. 708 filed by the Company before DRT-I, Delhi (Seeking computation of dues as per RBI Guidelines). I.A. seeking stay of SARFAESI proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2. Dismissed by the DRT-I, Delhi on23-12-2009. 25. It is also pointed out that as per the proposal filed by the Company before BIFR under section 17(2) of the SICA, the dues of the Company towards the three financial institutions were Rs. 35.65 crores as on 31-3-1999. The detail of exposure as on 31-3-1999 is stated to be as under : (Rs. in million) Name of the Institution Principal Simple Interest Other charges Total ICICI 35.5 44.0 42.3 121.8 IDBI 32.8 47.7 54.7 135.2 IFCI 24.3 34.1 41.1 99.5 Total 92.6 125.8 138.1 356.5 It is also pleaded that even if the dues of IDBI and IFCI are calculated as per the settleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at before the BIFR was to pay a sum of Rs. 11.78 crores as on 31-3-1999. The company was to pay quarterly instalments along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent up to 31-3-2002 and in case of default, further penal interest was payable. The said amount is the principal sum advanced and 20 per cent of the interest amount. It may be noticed that amount of over Nine Crore Rupees was advanced to the Company in the year 1990-92, whereas the settlement arrived was in the year 1999 with 20 per cent interest for the entire period. As against the said amount, the Company has paid a sum of Rs. 11,01,88,705 between November, 1997 to October, 2005. As per the financial institutions, the amount due and payable by the Company as on 31-3-2004 is Rs. 35.34 crores in terms of settlement submitted before BIFR by the Company. 28. Firstly, it is required to be examined Whether, the Company is liable to be wound up for its inability to discharge its admitted liabilities or that the defence of the Company that the amount claimed to be due and payable is disputed is bona fide or not . 29. Shri R.C. Setia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Company has vehemently argued that the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 514 of 2009. 31. Shri Setia, has further argued that the amount of debt is not determined, which fact is evident from the fact that all the three financial institutions have initiated proceedings for determination of the amount due by invoking the jurisdiction of the DRT. Therefore, till such time, the amount is adjudicated upon and determined to be payable by the Company, the process of winding up is not available to the petitioner. It is contended that the winding up proceedings are not the proceedings for recovery of the amount due, therefore, the process of winding up cannot be used to arm-twist the Company to succumb to the pressure of the financial institutions to make the payment of the amount, which is yet to be determined. It is also argued that the Company has filed CA No. 732 of 2009 to which the Bank has not even filed reply. In the said application, the Company has sought a direction to the Bank to produce the statement of accounts. Thus, it is contended that having failed to communicate even statement of account reflecting the payments made by the Company in the books of account of the financial institutions, the process of winding up is untenable. 32. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtisement. As per the said provision, the Court has the discretion to issue pre admission notice to the Company before admitting the petition and giving direction as to advertisement. The Court can also admit the petition and fix a date for hearing thereof without pre-admission notice. After admission, the petition is to be advertised in terms of Rule 99. An advertisement of petition in Form 48 calls upon any creditor or contributory or other persons desirous of supporting or opposing the making of an order on the said petition. Rules 96, 99 and Form 48 of the Companies (Court) Rules, read as under : 96. Upon the filing of the petition, it shall be posted before the Judge in Chambers for admission of the petition and fixing a date for hearing thereof and for directions as to the advertisements to be published and the persons, if any, upon whom copies of the petition are to be served. The Judge may, if he thinks fit, direct notice to be given to the company before giving directions as to the advertisement of the petition. ** ** ** 99. Advertisement of petition. Subject to any directions of the Court, the petition shall be advertised within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging from interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent to 21 per cent per annum with quarterly rests. The Company had paid a sum of Rs. 1,53,24,404 up to 24-9-1993. Even the simple interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent per annum for a period of one year alone on the amount of loan advanced to Company would be more than Rs. one crore and twenty five thousand per annum. Therefore, the payment of approximately Rs. one crore fifty thousand up till 24-4-1993 i.e., almost for a period of three years, is in fact part payment of interest amount only. It cannot be said that the Company had paid any part of the principal amount up to 24-4-1993. 38. The Company s Rehabilitation Package under section 17(2) of the SICA Act was accepted by BIFR on 24-12-1999. As per the calculations submitted by the Company, it was to pay the principal amount i.e., Rs. 9.26 crores and the interest of Rs. 2.52 crores as on 31-3-1999, total amounting to Rs. 11.78 crores. Such amount was to carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent from 1-4-1999. Admittedly, the Company has not paid Rs. 11.78 crores up to March, 2002. An amount of Rs. 11.01 crores was paid after the package submitted by the Company was accepted. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of the guidelines given by RBI. Keeping in mind the above circumstances, the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. The said Act deals with enforcement of the rights vested in the bank/FI and that the Act proceeds on the basis that security interest vests in the bank/FI. 42. In Satyawati Tondon s case ( supra ), the Court held that with a view to give impetus to the industrial development of the country, the Central and State Governments encouraged the banks and other financial institutions to formulate liberal policies for grant of loans and other financial facilities to those who wanted to set up new industrial units or expand the existing units. Many hundred thousand took advantage of easy financing by the banks and other financial institutions but a large number of them did not repay the amount of loan, etc. Not only this, they instituted frivolous cases and succeeded in persuading the civil courts to pass orders of injunction against the steps taken by banks and financial institutions to recover their dues. Due to lack of adequate infrastructure and non-availability of manpower, the regular courts could not accomplish the task of expedit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of section 447 of the Act. It follows that the claim of the appellant alone is not to be considered. According to section 447 of the Act an order for winding up of a company is to operate in favour of all the creditors and of all the contributories of the company as if it had been made on the joint petition by the creditors and all the contributors. The Bombay High Court in the case of S.P. Capital Financing Ltd. v. Bagade (India) Engineering Ltd., 2002 (10) Company Cases 657, rejected the application of one of the creditors who had filed a winding up petition holding that the prayer made by such creditors is not acceptable. It has been observed that section 447 of the Act in its plain language provides that as soon as the order of winding up is passed the nature of the winding up petition undergoes transformation from an individual petition to a petition on behalf of all the creditors and all the contributors. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to withdraw the petition without the consent of all the creditors or contributories. Therefore, it is not surprising that the learned Company Judge did not feel the necessity of passing any order on the application filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the SARFAESI Act are not in derogation of the aforesaid Act. It is well-settled that the financial institutions can recover the amount only either in pursuance of recovery certificate pursuant to an order passed by the DRT or by relying upon the security under the SARFAESI Act. Since the Company has failed to pay huge amount of the money to the financial institutions, such act of the Company is against the public interests. Supreme Court in Transcore s case ( supra ) held that there is one more reason for enacting the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Parliament enacted the DRT Act as the civil courts failed to expeditiously decide suits filed by the banks/Financial Institutions. However, DRT did not provide for assignment of debts to securitization companies. The secured assets also could not be liquidated in time. In order to empower banks/Financial Institutions to liquidate the assets and the secured interest, the SARFAESI Act was enacted in 2002. The enactment of such Act is, therefore, not in derogation of the DRT Act. The SARFAESI Act removes the fetters which were in existence on the rights of the secured creditors. 48. The argument raised by the counsel for the workmen and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals have been dismissed. The Company cannot be permitted to raise similar arguments again. It is not only impressible but against the judicial propriety as well. 50. Thus, the defence of the Company is not bona fide. The amount is due and payable by the company. The Balance Sheets of the Company also reflects large sum of money as due and payable to the secured creditors. Therefore, it would be just and equitable to order winding up of the Company, which has failed to discharge its admitted liabilities. Accordingly, the Company is ordered to be wound up. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as Liquidator of the Company, who shall take over all the assets and liabilities, actionable claims of the Company and act in accordance with law. CP No. 129 of 2004 and other applications stand disposed of accordingly. 51. Coming the writ petition filed by the company, the same was filed on 6-7-2010 challenging the notice dated 12-12-2008 under section 13(2) and notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Before filing of the petition, the financial institutions have communicated the reasons declining objections filed by the Company. A notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his conclusion we have already held a discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The reasons so communicated shall only be for the purposes of the information/knowledge of the borrower without giving rise to any right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act, at that stage. 2. As already discussed earlier, on measures having been taken under sub-section (4) of section 13 and before the date of sale/auction of the property it would be open for the borrower to file an appeal (petition) under section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. That the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary powers shall have jurisdiction to pass any stay/interim order subject to the condition as it may deem fit and proper to impose. 4. In view of the discussion already held in this behalf, we find that the requirement of deposit of 75 per cent of the amount claimed before entertaining an appeal (petition) under section 17 of the Act is an oppressive, onerous and arbitrary condition against all the canons of reasonableness. Such a condition is invalid and it is liable to be struck down. Reiterating the said judgment in Transcore s case ( supra ), the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged the action under section 13(2) only after the notice under section 13(4) was issued and that too after reasons for raising demand were communicated. The Company cannot be permitted to challenge part of the action when the financial institutions have proceeded ahead to recover possession of the secured assets in terms of section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In terms of the judgments aforesaid, the remedy of the Company is to approach DRT in terms of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 53. The Company has filed miscellaneous application in a petition for winding up for restraining the financial institutions from proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The said application has been withdrawn. However, it may be noticed that the petition for winding up was filed by the ICICI Bank, whereas the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, are being taken by the assignee of IFCI and IDBI Banks. Both of the said secured creditors were not parties to the petition for winding up when the said application was filed nor has winding up order been passed by this Court on that date. Therefore, in a petition for winding up, such application was not maintainable and has been rightly withdrawn on 28-7-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n independent transaction. It is not in the nature of One Time Settlement arrived at by a secured creditor with a debtor. The assignee has stepped into the shoes of the secured creditors on the basis of the assignment deed and thus all the rights and obligations arising in terms of the loan agreement executed by the borrower with the secured creditors can be enforced by the assignee against the borrower. Therefore, the amount of assignment cannot be claimed to be an amount on the basis of which the Company can claim to settle the account of the secured creditors. 56. The IFCI has claimed Rs. 133,77,25,581 as the amount due in terms of the agreements executed by the Company, whereas the claim of the IDBI is Rs. 10,76,34,691 as per settlement produced by the Company before BIFR as on 15-9-2008. It is the stand of M/s. Alchemist in short affidavit, that the amount payable to IFCI is Rs. 15.16 crores and to IDBI Rs. 20.18 crores as on 30-6-2010 as per the settlement package produced by the Company before BIFR. Though IFCI has claimed amount on the basis of original agreement entered upon by the Company with the secured creditors, but the said claim of the secured creditor cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 30 days from the due date. Due to the improvements in the payment and settlement systems, recovery climate, upgradation of technology in the banking system, etc., it was decided to dispense with past due concept, with effect from March 31, 2001. Accordingly, as from that date, a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) shall be an advance where : ( i )interest and/or instalment of principal remain overdue for a period of more than 180 days in respect of a Term Loan, ( ii )the account remains out of order as indicated at paragraph 2.2 below, in respect of an Overdraft/Cash Credit (OD/CC), ( iii )the bill remains overdue for a period of more than 180 days in the case of bills purchased and discounted, ( iv )interest and/or instalment of principal remains overdue for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half years in the case of an advance granted for agricultural purposes, and ( v )any amount to be received remains overdue for a period of more than 180 days in respect of other accounts. 2.1-3 With a view to moving towards international best practices and to ensure greater transparency, the 90 days overdue norm for identification of NPAs has been adopted, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot paid on the due date fixed by the bank. 58. From the above said circular of the RBI, it is apparent that default of four quarters was relevant for declaring the Non-Performing Assets in the year 1993, which was reduced to three quarters in 1994 and two quarters in 1995. It was 180 days with effect from 31-3-2001; 90 days with effect from 31-3-2004 and 30 days with effect from 30-9-2004. Therefore, in the year 1993, the period from which the Company claims that its assets should have been declared as Non-Performing Assets, the default period was four quarters and not 30 days. Therefore, the argument that the assets of the Company should have been declared as Non-Performing Assets in December, 1993 is not borne out from the circular issued by the RBI relied upon by the Company. 59. A perusal of the circular dated 3-9-2005 issued by the RBI appended with the writ petition as Annexure P.5 shows that such circular is in respect of Non Performing Assets below Rs. 10 crores. It contemplates as under : Guidelines on One-Time Settlement Scheme for SME Accounts Please refer to Paragraph No. 8 of our circular RPCD. PLNFS.BC. No. 31/06.2.31/2005-06 dated August 19, 2005 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
