Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20811 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Bajrang Rice Mill Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anubhav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent bank and perused the impugned communication dated 21.04.2018 despatched by the bank.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ C No.11479 of 2018 that was disposed of on 02.04.2018 by us by the following order :
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and perused the record.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that he has proceeded to seek one time settlement and has deposited a sum of Rs.20,77,158/- and for this he has relied upon statement of account which is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Loan was taken from State Bank of India, main branch, Allahabad. Learned counsel submits that tender of balance amount of Rs.1,70,372/- was not accepted by the Bank for the reasons best known to them.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed before us a Demand Draft dated 23rd March, 2018 drawn on IDBI Bank, Fatehpur, which he contends was prepared with the intention to clear the dues under the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Let the said draft be tendered before the respondent no. 2, who may consider the request of petitioner, keeping in view the fact that petitioner has discharged his major part of liability as indicated in the petition and pass appropriate order to that effect in continuation of the deposit(s) made by the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid directions."
Thereafter the impugned communication has been received by the petitioner informing him that since the period of six months that was provided for in relation to entertaining application for One Time Settlement has expired therefore the amount offered by the petitioner thereafter is not acceptable.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had tendered the amount on 15.03.2018 to one Sri Shukla, who was the then Branch Manager but the same was not accepted as the Branch Manager had been transferred and some one else took over charge, who refused to receive the same. These facts have been stated as mere allegations without there being any proof in support thereof and the same would not be sufficient to construe that the petitioner had availed of the remedy during the period as provided for under the One Time Settlement Scheme, 2017. Any private settlement with any previous Branch Manager can not be a matter of consideration.
However, in case it is possible for any negotiations or for extending the benefit of installments it will be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.2 and make a request to the concerned officer for any such accommodation. The writ petition is consigned to records with the said observations.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 R./