Court No. - 29

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12055 of 2022

Petitioner :- M/S Al Laham Frozen Foods Private Ltd.

Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sundeep Agarwal,Bharti Kashyap

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Neeru Devi,Sanjai Singh

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1.

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2022

passed by the Respondent No.3, Circle Sastra Head, Punjab National

Bank, Sastra Centre, Moradabad, whereby the One Time Settlement

approved in favour of the petitioner has been canceled. A further prayer in

the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to revive the One

Time Settlement (OTS) and accept the balance payment with delayed

interest within a reasonable time as fixed by the Court has been prayed

for.

2.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is engaged in the

business of exporting frozen foods. The petitioner was extended cash

credit facility of 6 Crores for conduct of its business by the Punjab

National Bank in the year 2014. The petitioner suffered losses on account

of non-payment of its dues by the overseas clients. The losses resulted in

the petitioner defaulting in its payment towards the Cash Credit Limit. It

was the case of the petitioner that it's losses on account of non-payment

by its buyers was covered by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of

India and the petitioner was liable to be indemnified. The petitioner

approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15561 of

2018 (M/s A1 Laham Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & others)

which writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2018

granting liberty to the Bank to consider request made by the petitioner in

accordance with law. The respondent-Bank by the impugned order dated

18.01.2022 has rejected the One Time Settlement application.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused

the record.

4.

The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2021 (The Bijnor

Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others Vs. Meenal Agarwal

& others) decided on 15.12.2021 while considering the questions as to

whether benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme can be prayed as

a matter of right and whether the High Court in exercise of powers under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a writ of mandamus

directing the Bank to positively consider the grant of benefit under the

One Time Settlement Scheme and that too dehors the eligibility criteria

mentioned under the One Time Settlement Scheme observed as under:-

“8. While passing the impugned judgment and order, the High

Court, in response to the submissions on behalf of the Bank that, there

are all possibilities of recovery of the loan amount and the efforts are

being made to recover the amount by initiating proceedings under the

SARFAESI Act and that the properties mortgaged can be auctioned,

has observed that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have

remained pending for seven years and the Bank has been unable to

recover its dues and therefore the hope of recovery is illusory. This

conclusion is not supported by any material on record. Merely because

the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have remained pending for

seven years, the Bank cannot be held responsible for the same. No

fault of the bank can be found. What is required to be considered is a

conscious decision by the Bank that the Bank will be able to recover

the entire loan amount by auctioning the mortgaged property and a

due application of mind by the Bank that there are all possibilities to

recover the entire loan amount, instead of granting the benefit under

the OTS Scheme and to recover a lesser amount. It is ultimately for the

Bank to take a conscious decision in its own interest and to

secure/recover the outstanding debt. No bank can be compelled to

accept a lesser amount under the OTS Scheme despite the fact that the

Bank is able to recover the entire loa