Amit Goel and Ors v. State Bank of India

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 "gsr"..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15th September, 2016 + W.P.(C) No.12138/2015, CM No.32241/2015 (for stay) & CM No.5771/2016 (of the petitioners for directions). AMIT GOEL AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Sagar Agarwal, Advs. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv P. Kapur, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. On 11th May, 2016, after hearing the counsels, the following order was passed: "1. The petition seeks mandamus to the respondent bank to consider the proposal dated 31st May, 2014 of the petitioners for settlement of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) /Assets Under Collection Accounts (AUCA) accounts of the petitioners bearing Nos.30107285233, 31685970897, 30513991959 & 30513990309 with the Pushpa Bhawan branch of the respondent bank. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and counter affidavit has been filed to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. It is the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners that i) the petitioners had 12 accounts with the respondent bank, ii) that the petitioners in accordance with the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme dated 5th March, 2014 of the respondent bank, on 30th May, 2015 (sic 30th May, 2014) made applications for settlement of the five of the accounts and which accounts have been settled; iii) that the petitioners on 31st May, 2014 made applications for settlement of four accounts and with respect to which this petition has been filed; iv) that the respondent bank on 5th July, 2014 came out with another OTS Scheme and under which the petitioners made applications for settlement of the remaining three accounts and which have also been settled; v) that the only reason given by the respondent bank in its counter affidavit for not considering the applications dated 31st May, 2014 is that the said applications were filed at the wrong branch of the respondent bank; vi) that the filing of the applications with the wrong branch of the respondent bank ought not to be a ground for not considering the applications of the petitioners as it is a matter of internal management of the respondent bank and the branch of the respondent bank with which the applications were filed either ought to have forwarded it to the correct branch with which applications according to the respondent bank were to be filed or immediately informed the petitioners so that the petitioners could have moved the applications at the correct branch. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondent bank that the dues under the eight accounts which were settled were less than Rs.10,00,000/- in each account and which the Manager of the respondent bank was empowered to settle and the dues under each of the subject four accounts were more than what was within the power of the Manager of the respondent bank at Pushpa Bhawan branch to settle. 6. It is further contended that the said four accounts had been forwarded to the Stressed Assets Recovery Centre (SARC) of the respondent bank at Najafgarh, New Delhi and the petitioners were informed of the same as far back as on 16th January, 2008 and the applications filed by the petitioners on 31st May, 2014 not at the SARC, Najafgarh branch of the respondent bank but at Pushpa Bhawan branch could not have been considered. 7. It is yet further contended that as per the scheme, the petitioners were to deposit 5% of the outstanding amount by 31st May, 2014 which was the last date for submitting the application and though the petitioners submitted the applications at Pushpa Bhawan branch of the respondent bank along with bank drafts for 5% of the amount but they were advised on 31st May, 2014 itself that the said applications could not be considered at the Pushpa Bhawan branch of the respondent bank and they should approach the SARC branch of the respondent bank and the four bank drafts for Rs.70