Sri. K.A. Surendranath vs The Authorised Officer, The General Manager State Bank of India and The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India

Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—The Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/S. Gatti Gas Agency and Sri. Venkateshwara Industries. The Petitioner availed loans in the nature of Term Loan as well as Working Capital Term Loan for the Working Capital needs of the business. The said loan was advanced by Respondent No. 1. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner could not meet his obligation of payment of dues to the Bank. Hence, certain proceedings were initiated under the Securitization Act for realising the amount.

Mr. N. Surya parakash, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the order passed under the Securitization Act has attained finality. It appears the Petitioner has given certain representations or proposed to give certain representation to the Respondent - Bank to consider his request to settle the entire amount pursuant to One Time Settlement scheme. The Petitioner would press into service Annexure ''B'' pursuant to a notification published in Times of India under the SBI scheme for One Time Settlement of NP As of SME loans announced on 10.03.2010. The Petitioner would contend that he has given a representation on 29.03.2010 a copy of which is produced at Annexure ''C'' to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, SARC Branch, Bangalore. His grievance is that even as on today, the said request is not as yet considered. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard Mr. Ramana, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Sujatha S, for the Petitioner as well as Mr. N. Surya Prakash, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Indeed Mr. Ramana would submit that Respondent - Bank is required to consider the request of the Petitioner for OTS Scheme having regard to the notification published in the Times of India on 10.03.2010.

Mr. N. Surya Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submits that the Petitioner is not entitled for such a relief inasmuch as the said scheme would be applicable to only certain class of defaulters and Petitioners does not satisfy the said condition.

Be that as it may, I am of the view that the Respondent - Bank is required to consider the request of the Petitioner. The Bank is only required to consider whether the Petitioner is entitled for the said OTS scheme. It is only on satisfying the criteria and the eligibility required under the said scheme the request of the Petitioner shall be considered.

Petition stands disposed ofaccordingly.