ORDER
A. Subbulakshmy, J. (Chairperson)
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, directing the Bank to consider the One Time Settlement (OTS) offer made by the defendants in their representation dated 23.7.2002 as per the OTS under the modified guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and shall make necessary compromise after receiving the balance amount from the defendants within 30 days from the date of confirmation of acceptance of the offer by the Bank and also directing the Bank to return the title deeds of the mortgaged properties to the defendants after receiving the payment under One Time Settlement scheme as full and final settlement at the earliest, the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal.
2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that previously the matter was compromised under One Time Settlement for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs and as per that compromise settlement the respondent did not pay that amount and that compromise fell through and it was also rejected by the Bank and matters settled once are not open for settlement under the new RBI guidelines and as the respondent did not act as per the previous compromise settlement, the benefits of the new RBI guidelines are not available to the respondent and the respondent is not entitled to invoke the new RBI guidelines and seek the Bank for settlement under the OTS Scheme. He further submitted that the respondent is a wilful defaulter and he also played fraud upon the Bank by not paying the amount to the Bank and also by not paying the amount as per the settlement proposal and also by disposing of some of the mortgaged properties. Counsel for the respondents submitted that of course the matter was compromised previously but as per the compromise the respondents did not pay that amount, now the new RBI guidelines have, come and the appellant is entitled for OTS under the new RBI guidelines even though the matter was previously settled and the settlement had fallen through. He further submitted that the new RBI guidelines also does not prohibit with regard to the enforcement of the RBI guidelines as against the borrowers who already entered into compromise and did not set as per the compromise.
3. The amount due by the respondent to the Bank became NPA in 1992 and the NPA amount in both the TAs is Rs. 25,88,725.178/-. During the pendency of the TAs before DRT-I, Chennai, the matter was settled between the parties in the year 1999 for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs as full and final settlement and the entire compromise amount had to be paid by 9.8.1999. But the respondents paid only a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in response to that said compromise out of the sum of Rs. 40 lakhs. So, the applicant Bank sent letter dated 22.11.1999 informing the respondent that the concession permitted to them had been withdrawn and requested them to pay the entire loan amount due thereon. Then, the respondent again came forward with the letter dated 17.10.2000 requesting the Bank to extend the Scheme provided by the RBI and to provide with the statement exhibiting the balance payable by him after crediting the amounts paid to the account and he has also assured the Bank to settle the amount in one lump sum within 30 days of the Scheme in full and final settlement. For that the Bank sent reply stating that as per the Bank’s guidelines wherever concession has been permitted and partial amounts are recovered, such proposal cannot be now brought under the revised RBI guidelines and the party to remit the full compromise amount of Rs. 40 lakhs along with interest at PLR simple till clearance for the entire delayed period on reducing balance. Again, the respondent sent letter to the Bank on 23.7.2002 requesting the Bank to consider his request and to agree for OTS under the settlement scheme of the RBI. The appellant has set out in his letter that if the RBI guidelines in respect of the small sick units had been applied, the amount payable by him will be about Rs. 12 lakhs and he has requested the Bank not to deny the opportunity to him and settle the matter as per the new RBI guidelines.
4. Counsel for the appellant Bank strenuously argued that the new RBI guidelines is not applicable to the respondent as the compromise previously effected fell through and as per the compromise that respondent did not pay that amount and he became a wilful defaulter and once compromise is effected and if the compromise terms are not carried out by the borrower, the borrower is not entitled to seek for OTS under the new RBI guidelines. He lays stress on the Internal Circular issued by the appellant Bank in respect of this. It has been specifically stated in the Internal Circular that RBI has not dealt with these accounts wherein compromise has already been permitted and where there are no/part recoveries, hence, it is not clear whether such accounts are to be considered under the revised Scheme, if the parties represent to consider under the new scheme and in respect of that they may take a stand that the accounts falling under the following category may not be brought under the modified guidelines-
(a) Accounts wherein compromise has already been permitted/accepted by the party and where the compromise amount is fully secured by the value or security.
(b) Accounts wherein compromise has already been permitted/accepted by the parties and where there are substantial recovery and the balance compromise amount is fully covered by the value of security.
(c) Accounts wherein compromise has already been permitted/accepted by the parties and repayment period is not yet completed/repayment is as per schedule.
5. Based on this Internal Circular issued by the appellant Bank, Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the Bank is at liberty to pass such an Internal Circular and it is binding on the parties and that cannot be questioned and as per that Internal Circular, once matters compromised and had fallen through, those compromised matter cannot be brought under the revised RBI guidelines. To lay stress upon this Internal Circular, Counsel for the appellant Bank relies upon Clause 4 of the revised RBI guidelines dated 27.7.2000. Clause 4 reads as follows:
“Any deviation from the above settlement guidelines for any borrower should be made only by the Board of Directors.”
6. Relying upon this Clause 4, Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the Bank is entitled to pass Circulars for deviation from the RBI guidelines for any borrower but the deviation should be made only by the Board of Directors and as such the Internal Circular was issued only by the Board of Directors and so deviation of the RBI guidelines has been done by the Board of Directors on 3.10.2000. On a perusal of the Orders, it is seen that the Internal Circular was only orders of the Management Committee and the Deputy General Manager has signed it on 3.10.2000 and it was not done by the Board of Directors. Further, it is seen from Clause 4 of the RBI guidelines that for any deviation from the guidelines for any borrower should be made by the Board of Directors. This deviation is not in respect of one particular borrower. The appellant Bank has issued a general Circular in respect of already compromised matters. This is a general Internal Circular issued which is quite contrary to the RBI guidelines.
7. Counsel for the respondents drew my attention to Clause 3 of the revised RBI guidelines and submitted that the Board of Directors may evolve policy guidelines regarding One Time Settlement of NPAs over Rs. 5 crores and this deviation clause relates only to that clause i.e. for NPAs of over Rs. 5 crores and that will not cover the present case which is less than Rs. 5 crores. Counsel appearing for the appellant Bank submitted that Clause 4 is the general clause for deviation of any of the guidelines and it does not pertain only to NPAs over Rs. 5 crores and the specific mention of the words “any deviation from the above settlement guidelines for any borrower” refers to all the borrowers and it cannot be stated that it relates only to NPAs over Rs. 5 crores.
8. On a reading of Clause 4 of the revised RBI guidelines, it is evident that this deviation clause applies to deviation of the settlement guidelines for any borrower and it does not relate only to NPAs over Rs. 5 crores. The specific words mentioned therein “for any borrower” denotes that irrespective of the NPA amount, this deviation clause applies to the guidelines in respect of the borrowers irrespective of the NPA amount. So, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the respondents in this aspect and this Clause 4 deviation clause applies for all the borrowers irrespective of the quantum of NPAs. The RBI has given the guidelines to settle the NPAs. It has been decided by the RBI to modify the guidelines which will provide a simplified non-discretionary and non-discriminatory mechanism for recovery of the stock of NPAs and all public sector Banks should uniformally implement these guidelines so that maximum realisation of dues is achieved from the stock of NPAs within the stipulated time. These revised guidelines are communicated by the RBI in their Circular dated 27.7.2000 for recovery of dues relating to NPAs of public sector Banks in all sectors. The guidelines for recovery of NPAs upto Rs. 5 crores cover-
(a) All NPAs in all sectors irrespective of the nature of business, which have become doubtful or loss as on 31st March, 1997 with outstanding balance of Rs. 5 crores and below on the cut-off date.
(b) NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31.3.1997 which have subsequently become doubtful or loss category.
(c) Cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR, subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR.
(d) Cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance will not be covered.
(e) The revised guidelines will remain operative only upto 31st March, 2001.
9. It was represented that it was extended upto September, 2001. While the modified RBI guidelines was in force, the respondent sent letter dated 17.10.2000 to the appellant Bank to consider his case under the modified RBI guidelines. In the modified guidelines of the RBI, it is stated in Clause 3(A)(v) :
“The Banks should follow the above guidelines for compromise settlement of all NPAs covered under the revised scheme, without discrimination and a monthly report on the progress and details of settlements should be submitted by the concerned authority to the next higher authority and their Central Office. Banks should give notice by 31st August, 2000 to the eligible defaulting borrowers to avail of the opportunity for One Time Settlement of their outstanding dues in terms of these guidelines. Adequate publicity through various means to these guidelines must be ensured.”
10. The object of this modified RBI guidelines for effecting compromise settlement of NPAs under the revised scheme without discrimination. The word ‘without discrimination’ emphasises that these guidelines are available for compromise settlement for all the borrowers except the cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance covered under Clause 3(A)(d). So, all borrowers barring those who come under wilful default, fraud and malfeasance, all others are eligible to approach the Bank for compromise settlement under the modified RBI guidelines and the Bank should follow the guidelines and apply them and settle without discrimination. From this, it is crystal clear that the borrowers are entitled to ask for compromise settlement under this modified guidelines and the Banks are expected to implement it non-discretionary and non-discriminatory. It is nowhere stated in the guidelines that once settled matters and compromise have been effected are not open for settlement under the revised RBI guidelines. These guidelines are applicable to all NPAs. From a perusal of the RBI guidelines, it is evident that there is no intention to withhold the benefits to some cases where settlement was effected already and matter compromised and failed. The RBI has nowhere in the guidelines stated that the benefit of this scheme is not applicable to cases where settlement was effected and was not materialized or failed. Even the appellant Bank before passing Resolution for their internal discussion has stated in its Circular that the RBI has not dealt with those accounts wherein compromise has already been permitted and where there are no/part recoveries and hence, it is not clear whether such accounts are to be considered under the revised scheme if the parties represent to consider under the new scheme. So, the appellant Bank itself was well aware that with regard to the already compromised matters the RBI has not set out any such guideline. The RBI, in fact, has not dealt with those accounts where compromise has already been permitted and where there are not part recoveries. If really the RBI intended not to give the benefit of these modified guidelines to already compromised matters which was partly effected or failed completely, the RBI would have set out some guideline to same effect. The RBI had not given any such guideline in respect of these cases. So, it is very clear that irrespective of the fact that once the matter was previously compromised and where compromise was effected or failed, all the pending NPAs are covered under the modified RBI guidelines except those in the case of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance. The appellant Bank of its own accord cannot circumvent the RBI guidelines and form a different opinion and pass a resolution and pass any internal Circular to its subordinates stating that in respect of previous compromised matters these modified guidelines are not applicable. The object of the RBI guidelines has to be carefully scrutinised, analysed and it should be seen by all the Banks that the object of the modified RBI guidelines are achieved. Instead of that, simply because there is something absent in that clause, that cannot be taken note of and no internal Circular or In-house Circular, whatever may be the case, can be passed.
11. Counsel for the appellant Bank relies upon the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in E. Sathyanarayanan v. RBI and Anr., WP No. 11556/2001; Intercorp Associates v. RBI and Anr., WP No. 12299/2001; G. Sundaramurthy v. SBI and Anr., WPNo. 13860/2001; Mohammed Ameenulla v. Syndicate Bank, WP No. 11595/2001 reported in Company Cases Vol. 112 and he submitted that the Circular issued by Chief General Manager of Reserve Bank to all nationalised Banks laying down guidelines for settlement of debts is not a Circular issued by Reserve Bank in regulation of Banking policy and that Circular cannot be enforced against Banks. The Karnataka High Court has held in the above said decision that-
“The guidelines issued by the Chief General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India on May 27, 1999 for constitution of settlement advisory committees and guidelines for settlement of debts to nationalised Banks are not guidelines issued in terms of Section 21 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949.”
12. In the above said case, the petitioners in the Writ Petitions sought for issue of a Writ of mandamus to the nationalised Banks to settle the amount of debt of the petitioners due to the respective Banks by calculating the amount in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI and the petitioners also have sought for issuance of direction to the RBI to enforce the guidelines and monitor its implementation by all the nationalised Banks and those Writ Petitions were dismissed holding that “If the guidelines of the circular are accepted, the laudable object of the Banks nationalization under the provisions of the Banking Compromise (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, will be defeated.”
13.The Madras High Court in Woodlands v. Andhra Bank and Anr., in W.P. No. 4655/2001 and W.M.P. No. 6594/2001 had held that the Banks are bound to act in accordance with the guidelines of the RBI and the Tribunal/Court are also bound to give effect to such instructions and the instructions of the Reserve Bank cannot be rendered useless or infructuous by the Banks delaying the implementation of the instructions and thus driving the parties from pillar to post and denying them the benefits of the guidelines and the Tribunal/Courts are duty bound to pass appropriate orders whenever such petitions are filed-
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Plasto Pack v. Ratnakar Bank, 2001 ISJ (Banking) page 750, Civil Appeal No. 5235-5237/2001 has held that-
“Bank should have compromised the suit in the interest of avoiding litigation and Bank ought to have taken a reasonable stand and should have sympathetically considered the proposal of the borrower which was not lacking in bona fide and in the interest of avoiding litigation and early recovery of outstanding debt the Bank should have compromised the Suit.”
15. Following the decision of the Apex Court and since this case falls within the jurisdiction of Madras, following the decision of the Madras High Court. I hold that the appellant is entitled to seek for One Time Settlement under the modified RBI guidelines and the Bank is directed to consider the OTS under the modified RBI guidelines.
16. It is seen from the RBI guidelines that the progress of recovery of NPAs has not been encouraging and the recovery position in respect of categories of borrowers other than small sector has also not been satisfactory and Banks have represented to RBI that on account of the relative inflexibility of the parameters given in the aforesaid guidelines, much progress could not be made in the recovery of NPAs, while Banks should take effective measures to strengthen the credit appraisal and post-credit monitoring to arrest the incidence of fresh NPAs, a more realistic approach is needed to reduce the stock existing and chronic NPAs in all categories and it has, therefore, been decided by the RBI to modify the guidelines which will provide a simplified non-discretionary and non-discriminatory mechanism for recovery of the stock of NPAs and all public sector banks should uniformly implement these guidelines, so that maximum realisation of dues is achieved from the stock of NPAs within the stipulated time and the revised guidelines will cover NPAs relating to all sectors including the small sector. It is apparent from these guidelines that on the representations made by the Banks, these guidelines were formulated and the Reserve Bank has issued these guidelines to all public sector Banks to uniformly implement those guidelines so that maximum realisation of dues is achieved from the stock of NPAs within the stipulated time. Only with that object, on the representations made by the Banks, these guidelines are issued by the RBI and most of the matters have been settled under the RBI guidelines.
17. The Reserve Bank of India is the prime Banking institution of the country entrusted with a supervisory role over Banking and conferred with the authority of issuing binding directions, having statutory force, in the interest of the public in general and preventing Banking affairs from deterioration and prejudice as also to secure the proper management of any Banking company generally. The Reserve Bank of India is one of the watchdogs of finance and economy of the nation. It is, and it ought to be, aware of all relevant factors, including credit conditions as prevailing, which would invite its policy decisions. RBI has been issuing directions/circulars from time to time which, inter alia, deal with the rate of interest which can be charged and the periods at the end of which rests can be struck down, interest calculated thereon and charged and capitalised. It should continue to issue such directive so its circulars shall bind those who fall within the net of such directives. Only with the view to speedy recovery of NPAs these guidelines have been issued by the RBI and most of the matters are also being settled under the RBI guidelines and these guidelines are operative throughout India on all the nationalised Banks and pending matters are also being settled under these guidelines. When Banks have to follow the RBI guidelines they will have to follow it and they cannot pass any in-house Circulars.
18. The Banks are not entitled to pass such In-house Circulars depriving the benefit of the modified guidelines to the borrowers when the object of the RBI guidelines is to recover the NPAs by enforcing the modified RBI guidelines. Any internal Circular passed by the Bank to its subordinates are not valid and they cannot have any statutory force. The provisions of the internal Circular passed by the Bank are contrary to the spirit of the One Time Settlement under the RBI scheme. The RBI scheme is applicable to all Banks and the Banks are bound to follow the scheme guidelines issued by RBI from time to time. When the RBI scheme is beneficial, the Banks which are bound to follow the RBI guidelines are not entitled to pass any internal Circular taking advantage of Clause 4 of the guidelines that any deviation can be made by the Board of Directors in respect of any borrower. That Clause 4 in the guidelines has been provided for any deviation to be made in respect of any borrower and that must be done by the Board of Directors. That clause does not mean that all the RBI guidelines can be deviated and internal Circulars can be passed. For any deviation in respect of any particular borrower, that can be done by the Board of Directors and that too based on any reasonable grounds. That does not mean that the Banks are entitled to pass internal general Circular in respect of a particular category. If such internal circulars are passed and those circulars are enforced, all the borrowers will be deprived of the benefit under the modified RBI guidelines and those borrowers will not be allowed to enjoy the benefits under the RBI scheme.
19. The whole object of the RBI guidelines is to provide a simplified non-discretionary and non-discriminatory mechanism for recovery of the stock of NPAs. That object has to be carried out by all the Banks. That object cannot be curtailed by passing internal circular by the Banks to be followed among themselves. When the RBI guidelines have to be followed by all the Banks throughout India, one particular Bank cannot curtail the benefit under that scheme in respect of certain category of borrowers by passing internal circulars. This is quite contrary to the aim and object of the RBI modified guidelines and the very object of the modified guidelines itself will be defeated. Hence, I hold that no effect can be given to the internal Circular passed by the Bank and the internal Circulars cannot be enforced. Based on the internal Circulars, the appellant Bank is not entitled to contend that the previously compromised matters cannot come under the revised RBI guidelines. Of course, the respondent compromised the matter in 1999 for Rs. 40 lakhs and the amount had to be paid on or before 9.8.1999. But before that date the entire amount of Rs. 40 lakhs was not paid but the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and he did not pay the balance amount within the stipulated time. Only based on that the Counsel for the appellant Bank argued that as the respondent did not act as per the compromise and the compromise was broken, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the revised RBI guidelines.
20. As I have already indicated, there is nothing in the revised RBI guidelines prohibiting the previously compromised matters from being brought under the revised guidelines. Even the appellant Bank has felt that on going through the guidelines the RBI has not dealt with those accounts wherein compromise has already been permitted and where there are no/part recoveries and on that only the Bank has passed the internal Circular stating that the RBI has not dealt with those categories. If really the RBI wanted to exclude those categories of already compromised matters, that would have been clearly set out in the modified RBI guidelines. That is completely absent in this case. So, it is crystal clear that the object of the RBI guidelines is to give benefit to all the borrowers irrespective of the fact whether the matter was previously compromised, which was effected or had fallen through and all the borrowers barring those who are wilful defaulters, fraud and malfeasance, are entitled to get the benefit under the new RBI guidelines. For the foregoing discussions, I hold that the respondent is entitled to avail the new RBI guidelines.
21. Counsel for the appellant Bank next submitted that the respondent is a wilful defaulter and he is not entitled for the benefit of the RBI guidelines. He submitted that having compromised the matter and accepted the compromise proposal for Rs. 40 lakhs, the respondent did not pay that amount in time and thus he is a wilful defaulter. After compromise was effected, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and did not pay the balance amount. Simply because the appellant did not pay the balance amount as per the compromise proposal, that will not amount to wilful default. Under the revised RBI guidelines, wilful default broadly covers the following :
(a) Deliberate non-payment of the dues, despite adequate cash flow and good net worth.
(b) Siphoning of funds to the detriment of the defaulting unit.
(e) Assets financed have either not been purchased or have been sold and the proceeds have been misutilised.
(d) Misrepresentation/falsification of records.
(e) Disposal/removal of securities without Bank’s knowledge.
(f) Fraudulent transactions by the borrowers/promoters.
22. The respondent does not fall under any of these categories. Counsel for the appellant Bank further submitted that the respondent has also played fraud and he offered to sell a portion of the property and deposit that amount towards the loan transaction, but the respondent after sale of the property did not deposit that amount and he appropriated that amount and thus the respondent has played fraud. The letter correspondence reveals that the respondent had proposed to sell that property only with the knowledge of the Bank. The respondent wrote letter dated 13.11.1996 to the appellant Bank stating that they are trying to negotiate sale of the hypothecated property and requested the Bank to give Xerox copy of the parent document. The Bank also sent letter to the respondent on 9.12.1996 stating that the respondent agreed with the Bank’s views that the property should not be sold without the Bank’s knowledge and written consent and the respondent has assured that the entire sale proceeds of this property will be deposited with the Bank to the credit of the respondent’s loan account. The respondent has also sent letter to the Bank stating that the respondent has given time to the purchaser to raise money and pay at one stroke and if not complied with then he would have to refund the token advance. The respondent also wrote another letter to the Bank on 8.12.1997 stating that the respondent has not received further amount from the agreement holder and the agreement holder has promised to pay a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and out of which Rs. 4 lakhs to be paid directly to the Bank, however, as discussed in person they are enclosing a cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs drawn on the Central Bank of India and in the event of depositing Rs. 4 lakhs by cash in their account on or before 12.12.1997 the cheque may be returned to them and if they fail to do so, the cheque may be presented for clearing. So, these letters and correspondence reveal that only with the Bank’s consent and knowledge the appellant proposed to sell the mortgaged property.
23. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that after sale of the property the respondent did not pay the sale proceeds to the Bank and he only appropriated that amount and he committed fraud. The Encumbrance Certificate filed reveal that a portion of the hypothecated property was sold for Rs. 7,300/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,27,000/- in the year 1996. The appellant Bank’s own Counter reveals that the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Counsel for the respondent submitted that Rs. 5 lakhs represents the sale proceeds and also some other amount. He further pointed out that the sale proceeds come within Rs. 2 lakhs only but the respondent has paid Rs. 5 lakhs and even more than the sale proceeds the respondent has paid that amount. Under such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the respondent did not deposit the sale proceeds and he appropriated that amount and he committed fraud on the Bank.
24. It is evident from the submissions made by both Counsels that the appellant Bank’s branch is in occupation of the 2nd defendant’s building and the appellant Bank is paying rent for that. Even in the Counter filed by the appellant Bank, the Bank has clearly admitted that. A sum of Rs. 13.56 lakhs was adjusted to the loan account by way of rentals payable to the guarantor the 2nd defendant Smt. Geetha Venkataraman in respect of the premises occupied in the Thousand Lights branch of the applicant Bank and after giving credit to that amount, there is a balance of Rs. 21.44 lakhs and including interest it comes to Rs. 24.75 lakhs. So, a sum of Rs. 13.56 lakhs was also lying with the applicant Bank being the rentals and that amount was also adjusted towards this loan account and respondent is a wilful defaulter and he committed fraud and only without the Bank’s knowledge there was a disposal or removal of securities. Wilful default will not arise in the case on hand. Only with the Bank’s knowledge the property was sold and the respondent also deposited the sale proceeds into the Bank. Further, a vast extent of more than 16 acres was mortgaged to the Bank and only a small portion of that property was sold and even that amount was deposited with the Bank. So, the respondent does not fall under any of the categories mentioned under the head wilful default, fraud and malfeasance. So, it call be safely concluded that the respondent get the benefit under the RBI guidelines.
25. The respondent filed Memo on 17.9.2001 before the DRT stating that the NPA amount payable as per RBI guidelines is Rs. 26,38,688.85 P and the amount paid and credited upto August, 2001 is Rs. 23,82,322/- and the balance payable is Rs. 2,56,366.85 P and the respondent is willing to settle the entire outstanding in the account for that amount under the RBI guidelines. For that only the appellant Bank filed Counter contending that the respondent paid Rs. 5 lakhs and also a sum of Rs. 13.56 lakhs being the rentals was adjusted towards the loan account. So, from the Counter it emerges that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 18.56 lakhs, which amount has to be given credit to towards the loan transactions, by the appellant Bank.
26. For the foregoing discussions, I hold that the respondent is entitled for OTS under the modified guidelines of the RBI. The PO, DRT-I, has stated in his Order that the Bank shall consider the One Time Settlement offer made by the defendants in their representation dated 23.7.2002 as per the OTS under the modified guidelines of the RBI and shall make necessary compromise after receiving the balance amount from the defendants within 30 days from the date of confirmation of acceptance of the offer by the Bank.
27. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that it was not open to the respondent to give any representation in the year 2002 under the modified RBI guidelines since the period mentioned in the RBI guidelines had already expired i.e. by September, 2001. Of course, the respondent was not entitled to give such representation in the year 2002. But it is significant to note that even on 17.10.2000 the respondent has given representation to the Bank immediately after the modified RBI guidelines came on 27.7.2000 to consider his case for OTS under the revised RBI guidelines. The representation was given by the respondent while the RBI guidelines was in force as early as 17.10.2000. The representation given on 23.7.2002 is only a continuation of that. So, much stress cannot be made on that, that the Bank cannot consider the OTS offer made by the defendants in their representation dated 23.7.2002. Since the respondent has already given representation on 17.10.2000, the appellant Bank has to give the offer of OTS under the modified RBI guidelines within the time stipulated under the guidelines and so it cannot be stated that the Order passed by the PO, DRT-I, to consider the offer made under revised RBI guidelines, is erroneous. It is very well within the time under the RBI guidelines. So, the Bank is directed to consider the OTS offer made in the respondent’s letter dated 17.10.2000 as per the OTS under the modified RBI guidelines.
28. I find no infirmity in the Order by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, directing the appellant Bank to consider this case as per the One Time Settlement under the modified RBI guidelines.
29. Appeal dismissed.