Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2008 (1) TMI 867

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their account was declared as NPA on 31.3.2001. On 21.2.2002, the appellant Oriental Bank of Commerce filed a petition against the respondents being O.A. No.21 of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (for short the DRT). The DRT passed a decree in favour of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 20,27,862/- along with interest on 14.11.2003. The appellant initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the amount from the respondents and a recovery certificate was issued on 8.12.2003. The respondents did not file any appeal challenging the decree passed by the DRT. Instead, the respondents filed WP(C) No.559 of 2005 and WP(C) No.560 of 2004 before Delhi High Court praying that a direction be issued to the appellant, Oriental Bank of Commerce, to declare their account as NPA from 31.3.2000 and apply RBI Guidelines for reconciliation and settling the accounts with them. The petitions were disposed of by a short order on 17.8.2005 which reads as under:- The petitioners have a remedy available to them of filing an appeal against the recovery proceedings to the DRT which remedy has not been taken and for which this petition is liable to be rejected. However, since this petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant bank has vehemently submitted that no consent had been given by the counsel for the bank to declare the account as NPA from 31st March, 2000, nor any such instructions had been given to the counsel by the appellant bank. That apart, the order of the High Court mentions has agreed to consider. It only means that the bank will examine and consider. Consider means to look at closely and carefully; to think or deliberate on; to take into account. There was thus no consent on the part of the appellant bank to declare the account as NPA from 31st March, 2000. A statement by a counsel for a party that his client will consider a particular suggestion given by the other side would not amount to a consent by the concerned party and an order passed on such a statement of the counsel cannot be said to be an order passed on consent. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order of the High Court has been passed on the consent of the appellant bank and consequently the present appeal is not maintainable. 5. Before considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....delines should be completed by 31st October, 2003. (ii) Settlement Formula  amount and cut off date a) NPAs classified as Doubtful or Loss as on 31st March, 2000 The minimum amount that should be recovered under the revised guidelines in respect of compromise settlement of NPAs classified as doubtful or loss as on 31st March, 2000 would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date of transfer to the protested bills account or the amount outstanding as on the date on which the account was categorized as doubtful NPAs, whichever happened earlier, as the case may be; b) NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 2000 which became doubtful or loss subsequently. The minimum amount that should be recovered in respect of NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 2000 which became doubtful or loss subsequently would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date of transfer to the protested bills account or the amount as on the date on which the account was categorized as doubtful NPAs, whichever happened earlier, as the case may be, plus interest at existing Prime Lending Rate from 1st April, 2000 till the date of final payment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Reserve Bank of India on January 29, 2003 are only in the nature of internal guidelines for the banks and financial institutions. They are purely executive instructions and have no statutory force. They do not create any right in favour of the borrowers. In order to avail relief under the guidelines, the eligibility criteria must be strictly fulfilled and one of them is that the account must be an NPA as on 31st March, 2000. What the respondents want is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the appellant bank to declare the respondents account as NPA from 31st March, 2000 and apply the RBI Guidelines to their case whereby their liability towards the appellant bank will be considerably reduced by way of one time settlement. 8. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. : Note 187-- Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC 2149, after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334; Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964, this Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports : ".......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. ......... In the instant case, it has not been sho....