JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in the letter IIBI:CO: 439: 11 dated 07/03/2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to accept the one time settlement for sum of Rs.14 lakhs and release all the documents from the respondents Bank to the petitioner.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the order dated 07.03.2011 and direct the respondents to accept the one time settlement for a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs and release all the original documents belongs to the petitioner from the respondent Bank.

2. The petitioner is a private limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies Act in the year 1978. The Company is in the business of extracting oil from rice- bran.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.62 Lakhs by way of loan from the second respondent- Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. The petitioner had committed a default in repayment of their installments and actions were initiated by the second respondent-Bank. The Bank was also facing some financial issues during the relevant point of time and admittedly, the second respondent Bank was Government of India undertaking, steps were taken to resolve the issues at the Ministry of Finance level. At that point of time, the second respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd., issued a letter based on the proposals submitted by the writ petitioner that they are agreeing for one time settlement of the loan dues. The letter dated 14.09.2010 reveals that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs towards full and final settlement of the Petitioner Company.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the letter dated 14.09.2010 issued by the Chief General Manager of the second respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd., would clarify that the proposal submitted by the writ petitioner for one time settlement was agreed by the second respondent. Thus, the respondents are bound to accept the one time settlement offer made by the writ petitioner. In view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the one time settlement offer, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The sum of Rs.14 Lakhs paid by the petitioner was returned by the second respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd., on 07.03.2011 itself and the said order is under challenge.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the proposal submitted by the petitioner for one time settlement was agreed by the second respondent and a letter was issued to that effect. While so, there is no reason to return the payment made by the petitioner by way of cheque. A sum of Rs.14 Lakhs was agreed between the parties and the petitioner also paid the same amount.

7. This being the factum, the subsequent decision taken by the Ministry would not have any effect for the purpose of depriving the petitioner from settling the issues as per the acceptance made by the second respondent.

8. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the second respondent -Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd., is the Government of India undertaking and was functioning under the control of Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The issues as well as the proposals are to be approved by the Ministry of Finance and as far as the case of the petitioner along with the other cases were placed before the Oversight Committee constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for sale of assets of IIBI. The said Oversight Committee convened a meeting on 30.12.2010 at 03.00 p.m in the office of the Department of Financial Services, New Delhi. The Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India was the Chairperson and the said Oversight Committee passed a resolution as under:

The Committee