CAN YOU FORCE YOUR BANK TO SETTLE YOUR NPA THROUGH ONE TIME SETTLEMENT?
Shubham Budhiraja (LLB, ACS, BCOM(H))
(Advocate, Delhi High Court)
Contact: 9654055315, shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com
Mr. A has a loan account with the bank which is declared as NPA for
defaults in repayment. The bank issued circular inviting a one time settlement (OTS)
scheme to settle the default loan accounts as per which 20% of debt to be paid
up-front. Mr. A applied for the OTS but bank denied the same. The HC issued
mandamus against bank directing it consider the OTS application positivity because
Mr. A meets the eligibility criteria of OTS and also ready to pay 50% of debt. The
Supreme Court[1]
set aside the HC order because;
(I)
When Bank
can claim the full recovery from Mr. A through its property then why should
bank be compelled to accept lesser recovery through OTS of Mr. A account;
(II)
Mere because
Mr. A meets the OTS eligibility does not mean that he can claim OTS as matter
of right irrespective of its financial condition. Such a precedent will only
create more NPA
Detailed observations
(I)
Merely because the proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act have remained pending for seven years, the Bank cannot be held
responsible for the same. No fault of the bank can be found. What is required to
be considered is a conscious decision by the Bank that the Bank will be able to
recover the entire loan amount by auctioning the mortgaged property and a due
application of mind by the Bank that there are all possibilities to recover the
entire loan amount, instead of granting the benefit under the OTS Scheme and to
recover a lesser amount. It is ultimately for the Bank to take a conscious decision in
its own interest and to secure/recover the outstanding debt.
(II)
No bank can be compelled to accept a lesser amount under the
OTS Scheme despite the fact that
the Bank is able to recover the entire loan amount by auctioning the secured property/mortgaged
property. When the loan is disbursed by the bank and the outstanding amount is
due and payable to the bank, it will always take a conscious decision in the interest
of the bank and in its commercial wisdom.
(III)
Even otherwise no borrower can, as a matter of right, pray
for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. In a given
case, it may happen that a person would borrow a huge amount, for example R.s.
100 crores. After availing the loan, he may deliberately not pay any amount
towards installments, though able to make the payment. He would wait for the
OTS Scheme and then pray for grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme under which,
always a lesser amount than the amount due and payable under the loan account
will have to be paid. This, despite there being all possibility for recovery of
the entire loan amount which can be realised by selling the mortgaged/secured
properties. If
it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit
under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest
borrower, who, despite the fact that he is able to make the
payment and the fact that the bank is able to recover the entire loan amount
even by selling the mortgaged/secured properties, either from the borrower
and/or guarantor. This is because under the OTS Scheme a debtor has to pay a
lesser amount than the actual amount due and payable under the loan account.
Such cannot be the intention of the bank while offering OTS Scheme and that
cannot be purpose of the Scheme which may encourage such a dishonesty.
(IV)
If a prayer is entertained on the part of the
defaulting unit/person to compel or direct the financial corporation/bank to
enter into a one-time settlement on the terms proposed by it/him, then every
defaulting unit/person which/who is capable of paying its/his dues as per the
termsof the agreement entered into by it/him would like to get one time settlement
in its/his favour. Who would not like to get his liability reduced and pay
lesser amount than the amount he/she is liable to pay under the loan account?
In the present case, it is noted that the original writ petitioner and her
husband are making the payments regularly in two other loan accounts and those
accounts are regularised. Meaning thereby, they have the capacity to make the
payment even with respect to the present loan account and despite the said
fact, not a single amount/installment has been paid in the present loan account
for which original petitioner is praying for the benefit under the OTS Scheme.
(V)
If the bank/financial institution is of the
opinion that the loanee has the capacity to make the payment and/or that the
bank/financial institution is able to recover the entire loan amount even by
auctioning the mortgaged property/secured property, either from the loanee
and/or guarantor, the bank would be justified in refusing to grant the benefit under
the OTS Scheme. Ultimately, such a decision should be left to the commercial
wisdom of the bank whose amount is involved and it is always to be presumed
that the financial institution/bank shall take a prudent decision whether to
grant the benefit or not under the OTS Scheme, having regard to the public
interest involved
Comments
Post a Comment