IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1158 of 2010
IN
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 9696 of 2010
WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6539 of 2010
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No1158 of 2010
=========================================
1. Jai Krishna Upadhyaya s/o Haridwar Upadhyaya
2. Haridwar Upadhyaya s/o late Bindeshwari Upadhyaya, both
resident at Road no.3 R.M.s. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.
Kankarbagh, District - Patna .. Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. General Manager, Canara Bank, Boring Road Branch through its
Manager, located in S.K.Puru, P.S. S.K.Puri, Patna
3. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Boring Road, Patna ... Respondents
============================================
APPEARANCE
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shashi Shekhar, AC to SC -XX
For the Respondent Bank : Mrs. Sheela Sharma,Advocate
Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
6 25/10/2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause – 10 of the
Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated
28th June 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in
CWJC. No.9696 of 2010.
The appellants – writ petitioners are traders
dealing in distribution of medicines. They had borrowed
loan from the respondent – Canara Bank (hereinafter
2
referred to as „the Bank‟). The appellants failed to repay
the loan as per the schedule. Indisputably, the appellants
are in arrears of re-payment of the loan amount. Indeed,
under the orders of the court the appellants have paid
certain amounts. However, they are still indebted to the
Bank.
The appellants claim that the Bank be
compelled to settle the account of the appellants under
the settlement scheme (annexure -1 to the Appeal). The
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
Therefore, the present Appeal.
The Appeal is contested by Mrs. Sheela
Sharma. She has submitted that the scheme (annexure -1
to the Appeal) is not applicable in case of the appellants.
Moreover, the appellants are willful defaulters. Their
account, therefore, cannot be settled. In support of her
argument Mrs. Sharma has relied upon the Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The
above Act is enacted by the Government of India to
provide for facilitating the promotion and development
and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and
medium enterprises. Under the said Act the word
“enterprise” is defined, inter alia, to mean an industrial
undertaking or a business engaged in the manufacture or
production of the goods. The aforesaid definition is
exhaustive and does not include the trading business.
The Bank appears to have framed a scheme
for one time settlement of doubtful and loss assets with
total dues of Rs.50.00 lacs and below in micro and small
3
enterprises sector. The said scheme has been made
applicable specifically to micro and small enterprises
alone. It specifically excludes from its purview the cases
of willful default, fraud and malfeasance.
In our opinion, by its very nature the benefit
under the scheme can be extended to a business engaged
in manufacturing or production of goods alone and that
too an industry specified in First Schedule. The
appellants admittedly cannot be classified as either a
micro or a small enterprise.
The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to
the benefit of the above one time settlement scheme.
We, therefore, cannot issue a writ of mandamus upon
the Bank calling upon it to settle the loan account of the
appellants under the above referred scheme (annexure -1
to the Appeal).
The Appeal is dismissed in limine.
Interlocutory Application no. 6539 of 2010
stands disposed of.
( R. M. Doshit,CJ.)
Neyaz/ (Jyoti Saran, J.)