Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET W.P.No.700 of 2012 G.A.No.3342 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RAJIB KUMAR MUNSI & ANR.
Versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 14th August, 2014.
Appearance : Mr.Debojyoti Basu, Adv.Mr.S.Dewanji, Adv.… for the petitioner Mr.Anjan Kumar Paul, Adv.… for the S.B.I.The Court : The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the bank is wrongfully resiling from a One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS).It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that it enjoyed credit facilities from State Bank of India.
The bank issued a notice dated April 17, 2012 under its OTS for Medium and Small Micro Enterprises.
The scheme is called SBI OTS-MSME2012 By the notice dated April 17, 2012 the bank called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,58,825/-.
The notice provided that, the application for OTS will be processed only on deposit of minimum 5 percent of the outstanding as on the date of the account being classified as non-performing asset (NPA).The notice specified the amount on the date of NPA being Rs.12,65,715/- as on August 31, 2009.
It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that, acting in terms of the notice dated April 17, 2012 the writ petitioner deposited 25 per cent of Rs.12,58,825/-.
After such deposit being made the bank issued a subsequent notice dated July 13, 2012 claiming that, the amount stated in its offer for OTS dated April 17, 2012 was incorrect.
A fresh OTS was issued on July 5, 2012.
The bank also did not process the OTS interms of its fiRs.notice.
Being aggrieved the writ petition moved this Court.
By an order dismissed granted dated against an September the interim writ 17, 2012 petitioner protection to the No.the writ 3.
petition The writ said was order petitioner by restraining the respondent Nos.2 & 4 from taking any coercive action against the writ petitioner until further ordeRs.The parties were allowed to file affidavits.
During the pendency of the writ petition the writ petitioner have deposited the entire amount claimed in the notice dated April 17, 2012 with the 2 bank.
According to the writ petitioner in terms of the SBI OTS-MSME2012petitioners are 15 per cent rebate on deposit of entitled to scheme the writ entire amount within the time specified under the scheme of 2012.
Consequently, the writ petitioner claimed that they have deposited the entire amount claimed by the bank by its notice dated April 17, 2012, after taken into consideration the rebate allowed under the scheme of 2012.
The completion material is of writ petition affidavits.
disclosed in has come The petitioner the affidavit up before points used by me after out that no the bank to establish the so called mistake of the bank in its fiRs.notice dated April 17, 2012.
The writ petitioner also points out to the possession notice issued by the bank dated March 17, 2012 which speaks of an amount of Rs.12,58,825/- being the outstanding as on August 16, 2010.
On behalf of the bank it is submitted a bona fide mistake crept into the notice dated April 17, 2012.
Such mistake was corrected immediately upon discovery of the same by the letter dated July 24, 2012 and the subsequent offer of the OTS dated July 5, 2012.
It is submitted on behalf of the bank that due to the arithmetical mistake in a software maintained by the bank a wrongful figure was entered in its notice dated April 17, 2012.
Public money is involved.
Since it is a bona fide mistake the bank should be allowed to change the figure.
3 I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record.
The bank issued an invitation dated April 17, 2012 under SBI OTS MSME2012scheme to the writ petitioner specifying that the bank will settle at Rs.12,58,825/in terms of the such scheme.
The writ petitioner accepted the OTS offer.
Initially the petitioner deposited 25 per cent in terms of OTS scheme and,