Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
M/S Sherif Cargo And Others vs The Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd. And … on 16 January, 2025
S. No. 34
Suppl Cause List
INTHE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) no. 118/2025
CM no. 253/2025
M/s Sherif Cargo and others
...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mariya Ashraf, Adv.
Vs.
The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. And others
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI-JUDGE
ORDER
16.01.2025
1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition filed under the
provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners
have sought the issuance of writs/directions in the nature of certiorari
and mandamus for setting aside the impugned order/communication
bearing No. JKB/IARB/2024/059 dated 29.11.2024, issued by the
respondents with a direction to them to settle the accounts of the
petitioners in terms of correspondence dated 11.11.2024.
The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the respondents-
Bank accorded sanction of credit facilities to the petitioner
Firm from time to time to help meet its working capital
requirements. That over and beyond the various facilities
sanctions, an ad hoc overdraft of Rs. 5 Crores also came to be
sanctioned in favour of the petitioner no. 2. That as per the terms
of the sanction, the said facility was to be adjusted within 60
days. That while the sanction was accorded on 29.10.2018, the
said amount only came to be disbursed much later on 03.01.2019.
That two extensions of 60 days each were sought for re-
adjustment of the ad hoc facility, which, computed from the date
2
WP(C) no. 118/2025
CM no. 253/2025
of disbursal of funds ought to have been adjusted by 07.06.2019.
that, however, the Bank computed the adjustment period from
the date of sanction, until 07.06.2019 and accordingly proceeded
to freeze the accounts of the petitioners and consequently
declared the same as NPA later.
That ever since, the petitioners made payments in excess of Rs.
2 Crores after freezing of the accounts to regularize the same but
the Bank failed to do so. That, thereafter, attempts were made to
restructure the accounts in terms of the correspondence dated
04.09.2020, however, the Bank failed to respond to the same.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri,
learned Senior Advocate, who inter alia submitted that the petitioners
represented before the respondent-Bank and expressed their
willingness to avail the OTS Scheme of the Bank for restructuring their
accounts and process was initiated by the respondents, but finally the
Bank has refused to extend benefit of OTS Scheme to the petitioners
without assigning cogent reasons through the order/communication
dated 29.11.2024.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the instant
writ petition can be disposed of even at this threshold stage by passing
an appropriate direction upon the respondents for re-consideration of
offer of the petitioners regarding One Time Settlement (OTS) of the
outstanding loan amount.
4. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank in
rebuttal.
5. In backdrop of the controversy, this Court is of the opinion that the
matter can even be disposed of at this threshold stage by passing of such
an appropriate order which will not prejudice the interest of the other
party.
6. Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of at this threshold stage with
a direction to the respondent-Bank to re-consider the offer of the
petitioners for availing OTS Scheme of the Bank in accordance with
the norms of the Scheme within a period of three weeks from the date
3
WP(C) no. 118/2025
CM no. 253/2025
copy of this order is furnished to them, during which period no coercive
action shall be pursued/taken against the petitioners.
7. Disposed of along with the connected CM.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
16.01.2025
“Imtiyaz”
Imtiyaz Ul Gani
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
18.01.2025 14:52
[ad_1]
Source link