Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6675/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6675 of 2008
=========================================================
MADHUVIR
CERAMIC PRIVATE LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BANK
OF BARODA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VC VAGHELA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
NALINI S LODHA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 05/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner by this petition, has challenged the letter dated
11.4.2008 issued by the respondent Bank, whereby the petitioner is
intimated to improve the offer and submit the same latest by April
20, 2008, failing which the Bank might proceed further under the
Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) proceedings for recovery of Bank
dues.
2. Heard
Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.
Lodha, learned advocate for the respondent Bank.
3. Upon
hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, it appears that it
is admitted position that the Bank is holding decree/award of Debts
Recovery Tribunal against the petitioner and recovery by way of
filing execution proceeding before the D.R.T. are initiated and
pending the said proceedings, the petitioner submitted proposal to
settle the dues, which has not been accepted by the Bank since the
Bank has found in its banking wisdom not to accept the proposal and
it has been intimated to the petitioner to improve proposal, if the
petitioner is so desirous, failing which the Bank intimated for
taking further action for recovery of dues.
4. Mr.
Vaghela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been
able to show any material on the basis on which it can be said that
there was a concluded acceptance of the offer for settlement by the
Bank. Merely because to show the bonafide on the part of the
petitioner while submitting offer for settlement, simultaneously the
payment of about Rs. 5 Lacs tendered to the Bank towards the
outstanding dues, would not confer right in favour of the petitioner
to compel the bank to accept the lower amount, unless the settlement
is entered into by the petitioner as well as the respondent Bank.
Therefore, in absence thereto, when the petitioner is facing the
decree, no right can be read as sought to be canvassed on behalf of
the petitioner.
5. If
the petitioner is facing the decree, the bank would be justified in
proceeding for recovery of the amount by resorting to the proceedings
of the execution of the decree through the process under the law.
6. In
view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence,
rejected. Notice is discharged. Ad interim relief stands vacated.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
ynvyas
Top