The petitioner is before this Court challenging the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act. Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.22 Lakhs in the year 2005 purportedly as a working capital loan. Admittedly, no activity was started for long, for want of sanction from the Central Government. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that work was commenced only some time previous to the filing of the writ petition. In any case, the exact date is not known. 2. In any circumstances, when SARFAESI proceedings were issued for default in the working capital loan account which was availed nine years back, petitioner was before this Court with a writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11. In Ext.P11 this Court had clearly recorded that the petitioner had given up all contentions and confined the prayer to a repayment in instalment. That was granted and the petitioner was directed to repay the loan in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.12.2013. Admittedly, no amounts were paid as per the instalment granted.
3 Subsequent to that, it is submitted by the petitioner, that a One Time Settlement was proposed by the Bank itself by Ext.P12. Petitioner sought for consideration under the Scheme by Ext.P13 and approached this Court again with a writ petition. In that writ petition, petitioner claimed only for consideration under the OTS Scheme. In such circumstances, despite the petitioner having not complied with the earlier direction for instalment, taking a lenient view, the writ petition was disposed of directing OTS to be considered and the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act to be kept in abeyance till orders are passed thereon.
4. In fact, even before the OTS proposal, the possession of the building and land was taken over by the respondent Bank after obtaining orders from the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is seen mentioned in Ext.P14. In view of the directions issued in Ext.P14, the petitioner submitted a proposal for OTS purportedly by Ext.P19. Against the total amount demanded of Rs.22,39,416.98, petitioner's proposal for settlement was for an amount of Rs.1,61,748/-. Lack of bona fides of the petitioner is glaringly revealed from the proposal itself. Hence, the respondent Bank rightly rejected the prayer by Ext.P20 and also pointed out that Ext.P12 was the intimation regarding the Adalath fixed on 5.3.2014 which was not attended by the petitioner. Even then the Bank was willing to consider the proposal as per the direction of this Court in Ext.P14. It is towards that end that the petitioner has made Ext.P19 proposal; the hollowness of which is very evident from the proposal. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the petitioner is merely resorting to delaying tactics, without any real intention to settle the liability. In that context, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However if a reasonable offer is made on behalf of the petitioner, it is made clear, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the Bank in considering the same.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//