Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Rameshwar Kumar and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of J&K and Others – Respondents
O.W.P. No. 159 of 2016
Decided On : 13-10-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. C.M. Koul, Mr. A.R. Bhat.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Gupta.
Point of Law: Whether the respondents have resorted to wrong calculations by not giving the benefits of the amount already deposited as principal by the petitioners. This is a disputed question of fact that cannot be adjudicated upon while exercising writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Section 2(c) - Loan case - Settlement Scheme for Sick Unit - Respondent No. 3 by virtue of which, petitioners have been asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 11.04 lacs within a period of 07 days - Petitioners also seek a direction to respondents to settle their loan case under Settlement Scheme for Sick Unit (SSSU) as has been done in other loan cases - Petitioners were sanctioned an amount of Rs. 36.87 lacs under two loan accounts out of which an amount was disbursed in favour of petitioners and petitioners after availing the loan facility set up said hotel and started paying required installments towards liquidation of loan liabilities - However, after some time, due to widening of roads, unit of petitioners was closed.
Finding of the Court:
Intention of respondents for granting benefits to some of units involved in a particular activity and not to units involved in all of activities as mentioned in definition of industrial concern as per section - Had it been intention of respondents to bring in ambit of scheme, all industrial concerns, they would not have incorporated a separate stipulation at serial No. 10 of scheme - Scheme was target specific and had no universal applicability for all the units indulging in activities as defined by section 2 (c) of Act - Scheme was meant for benefit of units those were involved in production activity - As such, respondents have rightly rejected claim of petitioners on ground that scheme was meant for industrial sick units and not for hotels.
Result: Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. The petitioners, being the partners of the M/s Natraj Hotel and Restaurant situated at National Highway, Tikri, Udhampur, have filed the present petition for quashing Notice bearing No. SFC/DOU/15/192 dated 31.12.2015 issued by the office of respondent No. 3 by virtue of which, the petitioners have been asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 11.04 lacs within a period of 07 days. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to settle their loan case under the Settlement Scheme for Sick Unit (SSSU) as has been done in other loan cases.
2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners were sanctioned an amount of Rs. 36.87 lacs under two loan accounts out of which an amount of Rs. 34,97,708/- was disbursed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners after availing the loan facility set up the said hotel and started paying the required installments towards liquidation of the loan liabilities. However, after some time, due to widening of the roads, the unit of the petitioners was closed. The petitioners opted for loan settlement under One Time Settlement Scheme and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 settled the loan on 24.07.2014 on the basis of distress value of assets determined as on 30.11.2012 by approved valuer of the respondents. Aggrieved by the settlement, the petitioners requested the respondents to reconsider their case for the settlement. A committee was constituted by the respondents, which has examined, considered and approved the settlement of the distress value of the unit-hotel of the petitioners valued as Rs. 46.04 lacs. It is further stated that the respondents again placed the case of the petitioners before the committee in its meeting held on 07.02.2015 and it was decided not to entertain the case of the petitioners and they were required to deposit the amount up to 31.03.2015. While the petitioners were in process of depositing the amount after arranging the funds, another scheme known as Settlement Scheme for Sick Units (SSSU) was announced on 14.10.2015. After coming to know about the said scheme, the petitioners applied and requested the respondents vide notice dated 15.01.2016 and thereafter vide reminder dated 22.01.2016 to process the case de novo for the settlement of the loan account under the said scheme as the case of the petitioners fell within the ambit and purview of clause 6 proviso (ii) and (iii) of the aforesaid SSSU.
3. It is further stated that as per the information provided by the respondents to the petitioners under Right to Information Act, the loan liabilities have been shown in both the loan amount i.e. account No. 1 and account No. 2 as nil and the unit has been classified as non functional and it shows the mala-fide on the part of the respondents while demanding as Rs. 11.04 lacs from the petitioners vide letter dated 30.12.2015. The respondents vide letter dated 04.02.2016 addressed to the counsel for the petitioners conveyed that the hotels do not fall within the purview of so called scheme. The petitioners have impugned the letter dated 30.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of SSSU and further that the respondents have willfully avoided to redress the grievances of the petitioners with regard to their claim of wrong calculations by not giving the benefits of the money already deposited in the principal amount for which the respondents have not responded with any affirmative reason but the petitioners could only come to know through the information sought under the RTI Act.
4. Response stands filed by the respondents, in which it is stated that disputed question of facts have been raised by the petitioners those cannot be decided in a writ petition and it is further stated that a total loan amount of Rs. 36.87 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners-unit and an amount of Rs. 34.98 lacs has been disbursed to the petitioners. It is further stated that on the request of the petitioners, the respon
