JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---By this petition, the petitioners have prayed to this Court to direct the respondent No. 1 Bank of Maharashtra to decide various applications made by them to respondent No. 1 for One Time Settlement (OTS) in accordance with the guide-lines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for compromise settlement of Chronic non performing assets of Public Sector Bank. A prayer is also made to quash and set aside a communication, dated September 30, 2003 (Exh. K) by restraining the first respondent Bank not to proceed with effecting recovery of the dues against the petitioners.

2.Certain facts are not in dispute. The respondent No. 1 Bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune for recovery of certain dues from the petitioners under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Ex parte order was passed on 18th July, 2002 against the petitioners. It was for Rs. 1,48,31,917.28. It is also not in dispute that before the said order was passed, no application was made by the petitioners for One Time Settlement relying on guide-lines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It may be stated that according to the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, the guide-lines relating to One Time Settlement had been issued by the Reserve Bank of India initially on 27th May, 1999, then on 27th July, 2002 and finally on 29th January, 2003. It is also admitted fact that pursuant to ex parte order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, Recovery Certificate under section 22 of the Act was issued against the petitioners. It was only after the certificate was issued that an application was made by the petitioners for the first time on 18th November, 2002 (Exh. D). Again on 12th February, 2003, such application was made and reminder was sent on 10th March, 2003. Since the prayer of the petitioners was not accepted by the 1st respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court. It may also be noted at this stage that ex parte order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on 18th July, 2002 has never been challenged even though an appeal has been provided under the Act.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners strongly relied on the guide-lines issued by Reserve Bank of India. It was submitted that those guide-lines are binding in nature. Our attention was invited by the learned Counsel to a decision of the Supreme Court in (Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others)1, 2002(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)616. In that case, their Lordships observed that once directives are issued by the Reserve Bank of India, all banks are bound by such directives and they have to implement them. It was also observed that such practice was adopted in the larger interest of justice which would narrow down the controversy in suits filed by Banking institutions and would enable expeditious disposal of such suits.

4.Reference was also made to another decision in (B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. The Custodian and others)2, 1999(4) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)280. Considering the ambit and scope of section 36 read with section 46 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Apex Court observed that the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India are of binding nature and the banks must follow them. It was also indicated that if there is violation or breach of those directives, the bank would be liable to punitive action.

5.Now, it is no doubt true that directives have been issued by Reserve Bank of India. In our opinion, however, the directions would not apply to the facts of the present case.

6.The relevant direction is in Clause C, which reads as under :

"These guide-lines will cover cases on which the banks have initiated action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR, subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR," (emphasis supplied)

7.In our conside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document