(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J) The writ petitioner herein questions the order dated 13.03.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissing M.A.No.135 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. The said appeal was filed against the order dated 16 June 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai in M.A.No.01/2002 in T.A.No.115/2007.
2.The petitioner herein had availed loan facility from the third respondent bank to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/- on 08.07.1985. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is a defaulter. Since the writ petitioner could not repay the loan in full as per the agreement originally entered into with the bank, the bank filed O.A.No.649 of 1998 for recovery of the sum of Rs.14,06,614/- stated to be due in the loan transaction. The recovery proceedings are still pending in T.A.No.115 of 2007. In the meanwhile, in the said pending application, the writ petitioner filed M.A.No.01/2002 offering one time settlement under RBI scheme/guidelines. The said application was opposed by the bank by filing a detailed counter. The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the said application by order dated 16 June 2009, by placing reliance on the earlier decision of this Court reported in 2004(5) CTC 689 ? TNIIC Ltd. Vs. Millennium Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and 2009(2) CTC 193 ? Maruti Acetytene Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India. The said order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was taken on appeal before DRAT by filing M.A.No.135 of 2009. The appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal as being devoid of substance. Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.In order to give one more opportunity to the parties to bury the hatchet, this Court called upon the writ petitioner to file an affidavit setting out a reasonable offer. The writ petitioner filed an affidavit dated 03 May 2017 offering to pay a sum of Rs.6.36 lakhs in full and final settlement of the respondent bank's claim. Though an improvement was subsequently made, the same is not acceptable to the third respondent bank.
4.The learned counsel for the third respondent stated that the offer of the writ petitioner is too low. When no consensus could be arrived at between the writ petitioner and the third respondent bank, it is not for this Court to issue a mandate compelling the third respondent bank to agree to an one time settlement.
5.We find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
.