Ms NPT Offset Press Private Limited Managing Director Mr Vive Sachdev & 3 Others vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 29 July 2021

: - O R D E R - :

1. MA 26/2020 is an urgent application filed by the defendants with a prayer to hear MA 14/2019 in OA No.22/2015 and to pass orders as this Tribunal deems fit.

2. MA 14 of 2020 is an application filed by the defendants/respondents in the OA which had been disposed of on 30.07.2018 with the following observations:- “The case is taken up for passing orders. Detailed order is pronounced vide separate sheets. In the result the OA is allowed, and it is ordered as follows: As regards the plea of the defendants that the applicant bank had unjustly denied the SBI OTS schemes 2016 and 2017 to the defendants, the Tribunal on careful consideration of the material placed it, besides the Case Law submitted by both sides, is of the opinion, that it is not within the domain of this Tribunal to adjudicate whether or not the terms and conditions of aforesaid OTS schemes were complied by the parties to the Scheme. Therefore the Tribunal is not expressing any opinion on the said contentions and it is left open to the parties to agitate the same, if so advised, before a competent Forum. Since, as per Ex.B16 dated 23.1.2017 filed by the defendants, a sum of Rs.9,63,29,570/- was due as on the date of NPA i.e. 31.12.2008, the applicant is hereby directed to reckon the said date as well as the amount, for the purpose of arriving at the amount due and payable by the defendants as on the date of filing the OA, by taking into consideration the terms and conditions mentioned in the Letters of Arrangement viz. Ex.A11 dated 29.1.2008, Ex.A18 dated 3.5.2008, Ex.A23 dated 12.3.2009, Ex.A27 dated 22.4.2009, Ex.A28 dated 21.9.2009 and Ex.A32 dated 30.1.2012. The applicant shall deduct the amounts paid by the defendants from time to time including the amounts realized by sale of a part of the security besides adjusted as per the direction of the Tribunal, from the amount calculated as above and is entitled to claim only the balance amount with interest at 11% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization. The applicant is therefore hereby directed to file a fresh statement of account by calculating the outstanding amount in line with the above directions, within 15 days, from the date of this order. Thereafter, final order, in terms of the above directions will be passed. The applicant is entitled to costs of this application. OA is allowed accordingly.”

3. In MA 14/2020 this Tribunal had on 14.09.2020 passed on order directing the Applicant/Respondent Bank to furnish copies of statement of accounts of the applicant in line with the directions in Para 25(b)&(e) of the final order of this Tribunal dated 30.07.2018 within one week from the date of receipt of the order.

4. The present petition is filed by the defendants contending that though the Respondent Bank had issued the statement of accounts after the order dated 14.09.2020, which according to the petitioner is an erroneous and inflated statement showing an outstanding of Rs.16.35 crores, which exactly matching with that of the memo claiming Rs.16.35 Crores filed by the Respondent Bank on 29.08.2020.

5. In fact it is the admitted case of the both the parties that the Respondent had already issued the statement of accounts in terms of the specific direction of this Tribunal dated 14.09.2020. However it is the contention of the petitioner / defendant that the same is not in compliance with Section 25(b) of the final order. It is seen from the proceedings that the parties are already entered into OTS and remittance were made in terms of the OTS, thereby the OA stands closed. This Tribunal being the creation of statute cannot act as supervisor to see the contention of parties after the disposal and closure of the OA before it. Even though in Para – 25(b) & (e), this Tribunal had directed the respondent to reckon the amounts and collect the interest as per the norms of RBI and direction as Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is not intended to recheck the statement of accounts already accepted by the defendants and readiness to act in a supervisory role. In view of the fact that the OA is disposed of on 30.07.2018 and documents returned to the parties concerned by the bank, hence nothing survives in this application. The petitioner / applicant is seeking hearing of MA 14/2020, which is already been disposed of by this Tribunal.

6. In view of the aforementioned reasons this Tribunal finds that nothing can be done in pursuance to the matter which is already closed as settled between the parties. This MA is stands closed and disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Virtual Court, through Video Conference on this 29th day of July, 2021)

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

(i/c) DRT-I, CHENNAI