J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 15420/2023(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3953/2023 and CM APPL. 15419/2023

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) direct respondent no. 1 in exercise its power U/s 45 (JA) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to require respondent no. 2 to adhere to NPA norms applicable to MSME loan account, before deciding non-performing assets (NPA) in face of its Covid-19 pandemic directives and regulatory package directed to be drawn in accordance with Hon'ble Apex Court judgment circulated vide its circular dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure-G)

(ii) Set-aside/quash respondent no.2's order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure-I) being non-speaking non- reasoned and in violation, disregard to respondent no.1's directives applicable to MSMEs sector;

(iii) direct respondent no. 2 to draw One Time Settlement in respect to petitioner loan account by enabling petitioner to deposit the same considering petitioner's property valued to be substantially & significantly much more than amount recoverable by respondent no.2 and payable by petitioner in its loan account.

(iv) set-aside/quash respondent no. 2's order dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure-P) delivered on 15.03.2023 as non- speaking, non-reasoned made without considering the petitioner's representation alongwith directing respondent no. 2 to produce statement of account pertaining to petitioner a MSME term loan account No. XOHEELD00003123193 taken aid for passing said order dated 16.06.2021;

(v) set-aside/quash respondent no. 2's order (Auction Order) dated 11.03.2023 (Annexure-Q) delivered on 15.03.2023 as non-speaking, non-reasoned made without considering the petitioner's representation.”

4. He argues that the respondents have violated the provisions of Section

45 (JA) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 while not accepting the One- Time Settlement (hereinafter referred to as OTS) proposal submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this court through the order passed by this court in W.P. (C) No.14779/2022 dated 02.03.2023. He states that in terms of the directions given by this court, the respondents, without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by a non-speaking and non-reasoned order, rejected the proposal for OTS. He, therefore, states that in the instant case, if the entire facts are analysed, the same would demonstrate that firstly, the declaration of the petitioner’s account as a Non Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as NPA) on 16.06.2021, is in violation of various circulars issued by the RBI. Secondly, not only the petitioner’s account has been wrongly declared as NPA, but even the request for entering into an OTS has been denied without passing any reasoned order. He, therefore, states that under the facts of the instant case, this court should call upon the respondents to explain as to why the reasonable OTS proposal submitted by the petitioner was not accepted. He also states that the endeavour of the petitioner is to close the entire loan account and not to keep the litigation pending.

5. Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, on advance instructions points out that the petitioner is already prosecuting her remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DRT) for certain reliefs. He also states that when this court directed vide order dated 02.03.2023 in W.P. (C) No.14779/2022 that the respondent-NBFC to place on record the reasons as to why, the OTS proposal had not been accepted, the NBFC, therefore, reasonably considered the said aspect by a speaking order and the same has been communicated to the petitioner. He also states that in the abovementioned writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No.14779/2022, this court on 19.10.2022 has already observed that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o