TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged by the petitioner are given in Paragraphs 14 to 20 of the writ petition which need not be repeated here. It is alleged by the petitioner that as a result of the disbursement schedule the petitioner suffered heavy loss as the Corporation delayed disbursement. Since 1990 the Corporation started issuing notices to the petitioner that the loan of the Corporation should be paid immediately and on 3.12.1991 the Corporation issued notice under Section 29 of the Act recalling all the loans of the Corporation and directing that a sum of ₹ 12,34,529/- was due vide notice dated 3.12.1991 Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Thereafter on 25.2.1992 the Corporation again wrote to the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner's unit will be taken over by the Corporation and if the petitioner wishes to discuss the matter he may contact the Corporation on any working day. On 28.2.1992 the petitioner's representatives went to the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation and deposited four cheques and promised to deposit further amounts. True copy of the letter of the Corporation dated 25.2.1992 is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. True copy of the letter of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovery Officer and Senior Manager (Law) of the Corporation participated and a one time settlement was decided to be ₹ 12 lacs and on 23.3.1998 the petitioner had given written consent with regard to this amount vide Annexure 15. It is alleged in Paragraph 36-G that despite the one time settlement and written consent the Corporation has written a false letter dated 13.8.1998 to the Joint Director of Industries. In Paragraph 36-H it is mentioned that on 14.6.1999 the Joint Director of Industries again wrote to the Managing Director of the Corporation directing him to submit a rehabilitation package of the determined amount of one time settlement. 7. In Paragraph 36-I it is stated that on 8.10.1999 a meeting of the Regional Rehabilitation Committee took place in which the Corporation was represented by the Regional Manager, Kanpur. The Chairman of the Committee enquired from the Regional Manager of the Corporation regarding the petitioner's proposal for rehabilitation and the Regional Manager replied that the proposal is under consideration. The Committee took a decision that the Corporation should prepare a package for rehabilitation according to the relevant G.O. Copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expired on 28.8.1988. In Paragraph 11 it is stated that the petitioner did not pay any dues to the Corporation after 31.3.1989. In Paragraph 13 it is denied that the Corporation committed any delay in disbursement of the loan. However, it is stated that the Corporation cannot disburse the amount without raising security at site and completing the entire formalities. The actual position of disbursement is given in Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. The Corporation disbursed the amount of ₹ 9,19,600/- to the petitioner and the balance amount could not be disbursed to the petitioner as no security was made at site. In Paragraph 20 it is stated that the delay was done by the petitioner who executed the agreement with the Corporation very late and also failed to pay the instalments in time and did not raise the complete security for the disbursement of the full amount. In Paragraph 24 it is stated that the Corporation provided ample opportunity to the petitioner for repayment of the dues but the petitioner failed to clear the same. The Corporation provided an option to the petitioner to come and discuss the matter and the petitioner's representatives met the Assistant Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or rehabilitation as held by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6319 of 2004, Swamp Packaging and Sanitaries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India, decided on 16.2.2004. It was held in that decision that one time settlement or rehabilitation or fixing instalments is really rescheduling of the loan and this can only be done by the Bank or financial institution which granted the loan in its descretion. Granting of one time settlement or rehabilitation or fixing instalments is really varying the contract between the parties which cannot be done by the Court. It can only be done by the mutual consent of the parties. This Court under Article 226 cannot direct grant of one time settlement as held by a Division Bench of this Court in MM Accessories v. U.P. Financial Corporation, 2002 (46) ALR 261. The Court under Article 226 cannot direct that a unit be rehabilitated. There are well settled limitation on the High Court's power to issue writs. The High Court can interfere only when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record. 14. In our opinion, the RBI Guidelines or GOs of the State Government are purely administrative orders and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
