9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting liberty to the petitioners to raise grievance, if any, in regard to the rate of interest by filing suit or by approaching such forum as may be available to them, did not mean that the petitioners would re-agitate the matter before this Court, once again, under the garb of certain communication received from U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad intimating the petitioners that the amount determined under the OTS scheme is wholly justified and it is not possible to accept its objection regarding rate of interest. Petition dismissed. - WRIT - C No. - 12920 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice And Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Vivek Saran ORDER Heard Mr. Debesh Panda, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vivek Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. A.K. Goyal, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. The petitioners, in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, call in question the order dated 31.1.2017, whereby th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits of the case, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 9.2.2016 directing the competent authority to decide the petitioners' application by reasoned and speaking order after giving them an opportunity of hearing within three months from the date of the order. In pursuance thereof, the Housing Commissioner decided the representation of the petitioners and rejected the same by order dated 25/27.4.2016. In the said order, it is duly recorded that the request of the petitioners for reduction of interest in terms of office orders dated 16.6.2009 and 23.6.2009 could not be granted, as these were found to be inapplicable, the auction in favour of the petitioners having been held on 14.3.2008 i.e. before the issuance of the office orders. The petitioners did not challenge the order dated 25/27.4.2016, and permitted it to become final. In the meantime, the petitioners filed application dated 21.3.2016 for one time settlement. The said application was disposed of by order dated 31.5.2016 whereunder the petitioners were to pay ₹ 50,27,83,046/- in two equal installments. The order provided that in case of default of first installment, the amount thereof could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarterly. The next deposit be made by 30th April, 2013 and thereafter within every three month. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks' thereafter. List thereafter for admission. Subject to deposit as above, recovery proceedings in pursuance of the recovery citation dated 17.1.2013 shall remain stayed. It is also admitted by counsel for the petitioner that except for deposit of ₹ 4.5 crores by 7.2.2013, no further deposits as scheduled have been made. We, therefore, have no hesitation to record that the Advocate has made an attempt to mislead the Court. We are also of the opinion that once the petitioner had approached this Court earlier against the recovery proceedings initiated by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and had obtained an order for payment of the outstanding dues in instalments and thereby succeeded in keeping the recovery proceedings in abeyance, he cannot be permitted to challenge the indulgence granted by the Bank in terms of one time settlement that too after committing default in payment of instalments. In other words, the petitioner cannot be granted liber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount determined under one time settlement scheme was being heard. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on paragraph 25 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the total liability of the petitioners was to the tune of ₹ 59,42,77,524/-, but which was reduced by about nine crores approximately under the one time settlement scheme. Thus, according to him, this Court, while deciding the writ petition filed against one time settlement order, was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on account of default in payment of installments in terms of the order passed in the first writ petition. He vehemently contended that the respondents had capitalized the interest component while determining the amount payable under the one time settlement scheme and the same is not permissible. In support of the said contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and others MANU/SC/0663/2001 and in Laxman Pandya and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2011)14 SCC 94. Before we proceed to deal with the preliminary objection, certain background facts may be noticed. The petitioner Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts accepted the application and passed the order dated 31.5.2016 permitting one time settlement by waiving a sum of ₹ 9 crores and odd, the petitioners filed the third writ petition challenging the amount arrived at by the respondents under the one time settlement scheme. This Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 21.6.2016 not only on the ground that the petitioners have failed to comply with the order dated 29.1.2013 passed in the first writ petition, but also because the Court found that the Advocate of the petitioners made an incorrect statement before the Court and tried to mislead it. This Court, while granting liberty to the petitioners to raise grievance, if any, in regard to the rate of interest by filing suit or by approaching such forum as may be available to them, did not mean that the petitioners would re-agitate the matter before this Court, once again, under the garb of certain communication received from U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad intimating the petitioners that the amount determined under the OTS scheme is wholly justified and it is not possible to accept its objection regarding rate of interest. In our considered opinion, the main relief sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
