The court emphasized the importance of establishing bonafide intent and genuine reasons for non-payment in seeking an extension of time for repayment under an OTS.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. The petitioner has moved this petition seeking writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to grant six months' time to it to make the remaining payment as per One Time Settlement (OTS) dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure P-2), with further direction to restrain the respondents from taking physical possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is a partnership firm and it availed a loan limit of Rs.1.55 crore from respondent No.2-Bank. Later on, the petitioner defaulted in repaying the loan and its loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by respondent No.2-Bank on 06.10.2018. The proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called 'Act of 2002'), were initiated by respondent No.2-Bank against it, which included notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002. Respondent No.2 also filed an application before the District Magistrate, Mansa-respondent No.1 to take possession of the secured assets. To this effect, notice (Annexure P-1) was issued by respondent No.1. Subsequently, the petitioner effected one time settlement dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) with respondent No.2, as per which, he was to pay Rs.1.29 crore in total to respondent No.2 by 30.11.2019. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- on the following dates:-

Date Amount 31.05.2019 Rs.27 lakhs 30.06.2019 Rs.8 lakhs 31.07.2019 Rs.10 lakhs 31.08.2020 Rs.2 lakhs 30.09.2019 Rs.2 lakhs 31.10.2019 Rs.2 lakhs Total Rs.51 lakhs

4. For the payment of remaining amount, the petitioner was banking upon the assurance given by his son Vikas Goel and his brother-in-law Prem Nath Garg, who were running separate business of Commission Agent Firm by the name of M/s. Bhagwan Dass Vikas Kumar. On 01.09.2019, Prem Nath Garg handed over the keys to his Accountant Bikar Singh. In the absence of both the partners, the said accountant had stolen the cheques and other important documents lying in the locker. A complaint dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) in this regard was lodged with the local police. The matter was also reported to the concerned bank, i.e. HDFC Bank. It was found that Bikar Singh-Accountant transferred more than Rs.15 lakhs out of the bank account of M/s. Bhagwan Dass Vikas Kumar through the said stolen cheques. The police failed to take any action in the matter. On this, Vikas Goel filed CRM-M No.49944 of 2019 (Annexure P-5) against his accountant Bikar Singh and one Dalbir Singh, who was helping him. Due to aforesaid unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner was unable to deposit the balance amount of Rs.78 lakhs with respondent No.2 as per One Time Settlement (Annexure P-2). The petitioner made request (Annexure P-8) to respondent No.2 for extension of time to make the payment of balance amount. However, respondent No.2 ignored the said request. Hence this petition was filed.

5. Notice of motion returnable on 31.01.2020 was issued and in the meanwhile, operation of notice Annexure P-1 was stayed, subject to deposit of Rs.20 lakhs by the petitioner with respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks. The said amount was deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.2.

6. In its written reply, respondent No.2 admitted that the loan account of the petitioner was declared as NPA on 06.10.2018 and thereafter one time settlement for an amount of Rs.1.29 crore was effected between the parties, as per which, the settled amount was to be paid in 7 installments on or before 30.11.2019 by the petitioner. However, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.51 lakhs upto 31.10.2019 and he failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.78 lakhs. It was prayed on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition be dismissed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. Leaned counsel for the p