IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.11704 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/s.Yojaka (India) Private Ltd Door No.3/28/43, II Floor ABCO Trade Centre, NH 66, Kottara Chowki, Mangalore – 575006, Rep by its Managing Director, Jagadish Boloor, S/o. Late Gopalakrishna Suvarna, Aged about 57 years, Residing at “Siddhi” Flat No.1006, 10th Floor, Abhiman Palace, Opp: Canara High School, Mannagudda, Mangalore – 575 003 (By Sri.C.N.Srinivasa Rao and Sri.Yogeendra Achar.B, Advocates) AND:
1. The Assistant General Manager The Corporation Bank, Pandeshwar Branch, Mangalore – 575 001 … Petitioner 2. Bank of Baroda Mangalore Main Branch, Mangala Complex, Opp: Roopa Hotel, Balmata Road, Karnataka, Mangalore – 575 001 Represented by Branch Manager 3. Indian Overseas Bank Hampakatta Branch, Mangaluru – 575 001 Represented by its Chief Manager 4. Reserve Bank of India Rep by its Regional Director, P.B.No.5467,10/3/8, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001 Ph-080-22212789 5. Union of India Rep by its Cabinet Secretary, Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 003 … Respondents (By Smt. Anupama Hegde, Advocate for R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the threatening notice dated 28.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 – Corporation Bank vide Annexure–P threatening the petitioner company to initiate proceedings before the NCLT and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.C.N.Srinivasa Rao and Sri.Yogeendra Achar.B, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Anupama Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Taking into account the order, which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) To quash the threatening notice dated 28.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 Corporation Bank vide Annexure P threatening the petitioner company to initiate proceedings before the NCLT.
b) Direct the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 banks to follow the RBI guidelines dated 26.02.2014 vide Annexure – D before classifying company’s account as NPA.”
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given an offer under the ‘One Time Settlement’ Scheme to the competent authority of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3-Banks and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the offer submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law within fixed time limit.
3. In view of the submission made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 – Banks to consider and decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner under the ‘One Time Settlement’ Scheme in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt the certified copy of the order passed today.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-