HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.38946 of 2014 DATED : 23.12.2014 Between:
Shri MSN Gupta S/o.Seshavataram, Hindu, Aged about 60 yrs, Occu : Managing Director, Sri Guruprabha Power Limited, R/o.Flat No.204, Pratap Residency, D.No.6-1-192/1, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad-25 .. Petitioner AND The Punjab National Bank, Rep., by its Deputy General Manager, Large Corporate Branch, D.No.8-2-672, Sufi Chambers, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad .. Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.38946 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner is a company established to generate power. The petitioner obtained two term loans and one Cash Credit Hypothecation Limit from the respondent-Bank. These amounts were not paid. Thereafter there was a mutual understanding between the Bank and the petitioner for one time settlement of the dues. Accordingly, the Bank agreed for said settlement by their letter dated 30.07.2014. Alleging that the conditions imposed in the settlement were not complied, the Bank informed the petitioner that one time settlement sanctioned stands cancelled by its letter dated 04.12.2014. Aggrieved by such cancellation and contending that without considering the representations submitted to the Bank on 08.12.2014 and 12.12.2014 for acceptance of 2nd instalment without insisting to pay due amount of Rs.95 Lakhs and also to accept the undertaking to pay entire amount of Rs.23.05 Crores, within stipulated one year period, this writ petition is instituted.
2. When the matter is taken up for consideration learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent represented that the respondent-Bank produced a letter dated 15.12.2014 a copy of which is also circulated to the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Bank considered the representations dated 08.12.2014 and 12.12.2014 of the petitioner and rejected the proposal and the petitioner was informed that the one time settlement approval stands cancelled and the concessions/reliefs extended to the petitioner could not be available.
3. In view of the same, the cause in this case does not survive. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies consequent to the decision taken and communicated by the Bank vide letter dated 15.12.2014. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J 23rd December, 2014 Rds