Apple Sponge and Power Limited v. Punjab National Bank

1. Allowed, to subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 8996/2024 & CM APPL. 36726/2024

3. The petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions for directing the respondentbank to comply with the mandatory RBI[1] circular dated 08.06.203, which provides for a broad framework for compromise/settlement of stressed accounts.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank is present on advance notice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alluded to the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 13297/2023 in CM APPL. 52489-52490/232, whereby the following directions were passed:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has received the following reply from the respondent-bank pursuant to the aforesaid directions: “WITHOUT PREJUIDICE Reg: Your offer in NPA account M/s Apple Sponge & Power Ltd. Sir,

2 Apple Sponge and Power Limited v. Punjab National Bank In terms of your application submitted u/s 230 of Companies Act 2013 in Hon'ble NCLT Delhi. vide application No, (CAA)- 20/ND/2024 and your previous offer letter dated 06.10.2023 wherein you have offered an amount of Rs. 63:00 crore for the consortium to resolve the captioned NPA Account (Our share Rs

32.60 Crore @ 51.74%). lt has been observed that your offer is quite low vis a vis Total Dues towards Bank. In view of the above, your offer/proposal cannot be considered on merits by the bank, Further this letter is being issued on a without prejudice basis and should not be constructed as a waiver of any rights, remedies or defences legal or equitable as available to Punjab National Bank. We reserve our rights and remedies available to us in connection with the maiter of the M/s Apple Sponge & Power Ltd. Thanking You Yours Sincerely Sd/- ASSTT.GENERAL MANAGER”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that no reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the respondent-bank and the OTS[3] has been rejected on flimsy and arbitrary grounds.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by this Court in a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, on which date the total amount due was Rs. 90 crores and an offer was made on behalf of the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 28 crores in one shot towards full and final settlement of the outstanding dues. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent-bank to furnish a copy of the policy, if any, it had put in place pursuant to the RBI circular dated 07.06.2019. One Time Settlement

9. It is pointed out that, subsequently OTS proposal was submitted by the petitioner on 14.10.2022, whereby the petitioner had proposed to make payment of Rs. 45 cores and the same position was reiterated on 06.06.2023. It is, however, pointed out that pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court, the petitioner has diluted its proposal so as to make now an offer of Rs. 32.60 crores towards NPA[4] account.

10. Ex facie, it appears that the petitioner is simply trying to gain time and for the last five years, no payment has been made towards the NPA account. The petitioner is also changing its proposals time and again, which stand invites an inference that their proposal lack sincerity and bonafides.

11. In view of the fact that the recovery certificate has already been issued and the matter is pending before the DRT[5] and for the fact that proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC[6] are pending before the NCLT[7], this Court is not inclined to interfere.

12. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.