( 1 ) BY this appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha niyalaya (Khand Niyay Peeth Ko Appeal) adhiniyam, 2005, the appellants/petitioners assail the order dated 16-10-2006, passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 4671/06. The order of the Collector dated 19-7-2006 (Annexure-P/9) was assailed, by which the Collector had directed recovery of possession from the petitioners of the mortgaged property under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

( 2 ) IT was pleaded before the learned single Judge that as against the amount of rs. 52,11,067/- claimed to be due, the petitioners had already submitted a proposal for settlement of account for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- out of which the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to indicate their bona fide. This proposal was, however, turned down by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has pointed out that although the first proposal had already been turned down, the petitioners repeated the proposal in the very sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- and, therefore, the same did not require any consideration.

( 3 ) IN the context of the facts brought on record, the learned single Judge directed that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation to the respondent No. 2/bank within a period of four weeks proposing to pay higher amount than the one proposed earlier, and pays RS. 5,00,000/- along with the representation, the respondent No. 2 shall take the said representation into account in accordance with the guidelines for settlement of accounts. It was further directed that pending consideration of the proposal, the petitioner shall further deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- within two months thereafter in two monthly installments and after depositing Rs. 15,00,000/- in three months, the respondent No. 2/bank shall dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the directions issued by the learned single Judge run counter to the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank in this behalf. Clause-6 of the guidelines, as produced before us, provides for the repayment mode it provides that in order to prove their bona fide, the obligants/borrowers must deposit upfront amount at least from 10% to 25% of the settlement amount or negotiated amount while submitting approving the settlement proposal. It further lays down that the amount may be kept in no Lien Account. If the settlement is approved by the competent authority, the said amount be appropriated immediately without referring to the borrower/third party. In case the settlement proposal is rejected by the competent authority, the amount kept in No Lien Account shall be refunded to the obligants /borrowers.

( 5 ) THE precise contention of the learned counsel is that since the amount which was required to be kept in the No Lien Account has been otherwise appropriated, this signifies the acceptance of the settlement by the Bank. Acceptance cannot be inferred merely because the amount has been transferred from the No Lien Account to the other account. Acceptance implies a positive conduct on the part of the competent authority to take into account the conditions/proposals for settlement and to thereafter give its consent. Under these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel that the appropriation of the amount paid with the proposal for settlement by itself signifies consent/acceptance. Learned counsel further submitted that in case the Bank did not want to consider the representation/settlement offered by the petitioners, it should have refunded the amount that was required to be kept in the no Lien Account pending acceptance of settlement. We are of the view that since the repayment mode provided by the Reserve bank provides for such a course, if the respondent No. 2 bank is not desirous of acceptance of settlement it should act in accordanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document