B. Ghosh, J.
1. Appeal No. 470 of 1998 was disposed of by a Judgment dated 6th December, 1991. Subsequently, certain disputes arose in regard to the in terpretation of the said judgment and as such an application was filed for clarification thereof. By a judgment dated 22nd May, 1997 the application for clarification was disposed of.
2. Pursuant to the Judgment dated 6th December, 1991 certain bank guarantees were obtained by Samslng Plantation in dustries Limited from Allahabad Bank, which bank guarantees were furnished in favour of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. Dispute arose in relation to enforceability of the said bank guarantees. Those disputes were set at rest by the Judgment dated 22nd May, 1997. In that Judgment the mode and method of invoking the said bank guarantees had been provided.
3. By filing T 623 of 1998 the Samslng Plantation in dustries Limited brought on record that tt owns and manages one of the largest Tea Estates in the State of West Bengal, situated on the hills of North Bengal near Darzlllng for which it employs largest number of workmen, who along with their family members reside within the said Tea Estate and that there are two Unions operating in the said Tea estate, members of which are fighting against each other resulting in blood-shed and as a consequence, thepetitioner-company had no other option but to declare lock out. In that application appropriate reliefs were sought to prevent the situation becoming worse and to create appropriate atmoshphere so that the tea garden and the tea in dustry of the petitioner company can be saved along with lives and properties of Its workmen and their family members residing within the said Tea Estate.
4. In T 678 of 1998 the Samslng Plantation and in dustries Limited complained that although the bank guarantees furnished by Allahabad Bank have not been invoked in the manner provided for in the judgment dated 22nd May. 1997 and although no payment thereunder had been made by the said Bank to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal but still then Allahabad Bank is seeking to recover from the petitioner-company the amount of the bank guarantees and for that matter has in itiated a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, West Bengal registered as OA No. 241 of 1997. In that application a prayer was made for restraining Allahabad Bank from proceeding with OA No, 241 of 1997. In that an additional prayer was made for a direction upon the Allahabad Bank to honour the rehabilitation scheme dated 26th June, 1996 which was filed by the petitioner-company and which was said to have been accepted by the Allahabad bank by a letter dated 19th September. 1996.
5. In W.P. No. 1329 of 1988 Samslng Plantation in d. Ltd. & Anr. contended that the Tea Estate presently belonging to it was previously, as would be evident from the records of Appeal No. 470 of 1988, under the Sales Tax Authorities and also under a Government Company for a considerable period of time, when no care was taken to the tea bushes or to the plants and machinery for which purpose huge capital was spent and as a result the interest burden became alarming. At that situation a revival proposal was made for which at the request of Allahabad Bank M/s. S. Matty & Co., Chatered Accountants were asked to prepare a viability report which was prepared and submitted to the Allahabad Bank on 22nd June. 1994. It was then contended that on the basis of the said viability report a rehabilitation scheme was prepared by the petitioner-company and the same was filed with Allahabad Bank on 17th October, 1994. Certain clarifications on the said rehabilitation scheme was fought by the Allahabad Bank in February, 1995 which were replied by a letter dated 1st March. 1995. Then the petitioner-company furnished a fresh proposal dated 10th March, 1995. Thereafter a valuation report was obtained from J. Thomas & Co. and on the basis thereof as well as on the basis of several correspondence a further proposal was given by Hie petitioner-company on 26th June, 1996 which was subsequently vetted by the Bank by Tea Consultancy and Plantations Services (India) Ltd. who opined that the same was acceptable. In those it appears that there was a proposal to fund a portion of the interest already accrued and to grant some need based funds. In the meantime on 21st February. 1995 the Tea Board declared the petitioner-company as a sick, unit and thus, it was claimed that it became entitled to concessions and reliefs shown in the proposals mentioned above. It was then stated that instead of considering the proposals given by the petitioner-company, Allahabad Bank filed a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 11,53,83,985--with in terest at the rate of 18.5% and penal in terest and which proceeding was registered asO.a.nO. 241 of 1997. It was stated that in the said claim the amounts of the bank guarantees mentioned above amounting to Ks. 2.13 crores had been in cluded when, in fact, no payment under the guarantees has been made by the Bank. It was then stated that although the bank could charge in terms of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of in dia at their best 18.50% as interest but in the pleadings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal it claimed 18.7 1/2% as interest and in the Statements of Accounts it had debited in terest at the rate of 21.7 1/2%. In that application quashing of O.A. No. 241 of 1997 Was prayed. The above applications were heard from time to time.
6. During the course of hearing of the applications on 1st June, i998 we passed an order in T 626 of 1998 as follows :
'Heard. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations in the petition, we are persuaded to think that the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, is a necessary party. The petitioners are directed, accordingly, to and the Labour Commissioner as one of the respondents.
Mr. T.K. Dutta, learned Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. No in dividual notices, therefore, need be Issued calling upon them to show cause. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, shall serve eight copies of the petition and connected papers upon the learned Government Pleader by tomorrow i.e. 2nd June 1998.
Keeping the view the topographical situation of the estate of the petitioners, large habitation of the employees in the estate and their activities as well as allegations that there are many unlawful activities going on in the estate, we are in clined to direct as follows :--
(1) Pending further order the 3rd and 4th respondents shall forthwith assess the required strength of the police picket and police patrolling in the entire area covered by the estate without delay and provide forthwith such number of police personnel for picket and patrolling with necessary type and number of arms for the purpose of maintaining law and order and checking any and every unlawful activity and before any such assessment is done, provide adequate number of personnel on demand as contemplated under section 13 of the in dian Police Act as amended from time to time by the petitioners at their cost and after assessment deploy such number of personnel as assessed in the same manner at the cost of the petitioners.
(2) The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 shall forthwith take up search of the area and all parts of the petitioners' estate for any unauthorised/ unlicensed arms/weapons/explosives and seize the same in accordance with law if found and register cases under the relevant provisions of law.
(3) The newly added respondent, Labour Commissioner, shall personally or through an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Labour forthwith take up the study of the labour management relationship in cluding in ter union rivalry, if any, and prepare a report thereof and submit the same in a sealed cover in the in stant proceedings.
(4) The 3rd respondent, in spector General of Police, North Bengal shall personally enquire in to all the allegations in the petition as well as in respect of all other matters pertaining to law and order in the estate of the petitioners, prepare report and submit the same in the in stant proceedings.
(5) Enquiries and reports aforementioned shall be completed and submitted as directed above within four weeks from date.
(6) The 7th respondent, District Magistrate. Jalpalguri, shall in the meanwhile in spect the area covered by the estate of the petitioners, make his own enquiries with respect to the rule of the management, the rule of the workmen and/or any outsiders, intruders and/or antisocial elements in the matter and submit a report thereof wtthln four weeks from date.
The petitioners are directed to deposit a tentative costof Rs. 25,000/-for deployment of the additional Police Officers/Force/Armed Police Personnel for picketing and patrolling including any cost for hiring a motor vehicle /vehicles with the 3rd respondent, the in spector General of Police, North Bengal, by 4th June, 1998.
This matter will be put up after four weeks from date. In the meanwhile, affidavit-in-opposition, if any, may be filed.
All parties concerned including the Labour Commissioner Government of West Bengal, are to act on a signed xerox copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking.'
7. Thereafter, after consideration of the report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jalpalguri we passed an order dated 30th June, 1998 in T No. 623 of 1998 as foUows :
'Heard. Report by one N. Hassan, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jalpalguri is received. No report however from the in spector General of Police is available. We are in formed by the learned Government Pleader, however, that the report has arrived and shall be produced before the court at the next hearing. It transpires after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from the report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner that there are two labour Unions, one called Jatlya Cha Mazdoor Congress and the other called Cha Bagan Mazdoor Union operating in the tea estate. The latter, i.e. Cha Began Mazddoor Union is recognised by the management. Jatlya Cha Mazdoor Congress has alleged that the management has denied to their Union right to represent the cause of the workmen and has been listening only to Cha Bagan Mazdoor Union in all labour matters. It appears from the report that rivalry has been causing on occasions tension between the two Unions resulting in violence. The management, however, continued the lock-out apprehending that if lock-out is lifted and no care is bestowed to in ter-Union rivalry by competent authorities, management shall be losing heavily.
It has transpired in the course of hearing that there is a Joint Labour Commissioner at Sillguri who is the senlormost officer of the Labour Department of the Government in the area. It is suggested that a meeting of the representatives of the management and the representatives of thetwo Unions if called by the Joint Labour Commissioner, may provide opportunity to know grievances, if any, of the workers as a whole either represented by one or the other Union and it would be possible for the management on the basis of such understanding to which Unions would reach to lift the lock-out. We are inclined on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to order as follows :
(1) The Joint Labour Commissioner, Slllgurl shall call representatives of the management, Jatlya Cha Mazdoor Congress (Union) and Cha Bagan Mazdoor Union at a meeting in his office at Slllgurl on or before 3rd July, 1998. After hearing the representatives of the Unions and the management, Joint Labour Commissioner shall make efforts to solve dispute, if any, by negotiation and in case any such dispute is not solved by negotiation, forward along with his report the same for further orders by the court on or before 6lh July, 1998.
(2) if there is no dispute with the management as such which would be any impediment in lifting the lock-out, Joint Labour Commissioner shall so advise the management and the Unions and the management shall be at liberty to lift the lock-out on such advice of the Joint Labour Commissioner and on condition that the Unions agree to abide by the advice of the Joint Labour Commissioner.
(3) in case the Joint Labour Commissioner advises to lift the lock-out and the management accordingly agrees to lift the lock-out and any police protection is required, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the in spector General, North Bengal and as advised by the Joint Labour Commissioner, the in spector General, North Bengal shall provide necessary protection.
Put up on 8lh July, 1998 before appellate side matters.
All parties in cluding the Joint Labour Commissioner, Slllgurl and the in spector General, North Bengal to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertakings.'
8. Subsequently we received the enquiry report of the in spector General of Police, North Bengal Region. From that it appeared as follows :
'In 1997, only one case of grievous in jury was reported from the Tea Garden vide Metalli PS Case No. 56/97 dt. 21.8.97 u/s. 326/34 IPC which ended in charge-sheet against the three accused belonging to CBMU for assaulting one Kali a Biswa, a supporter of NLCC.
In 1998, there were five FIR-cases reported which occurred due to intense campaigning by the rival unions and heightened tension in the pre-poll phase of Panchayat Elections held on 28th May, 1998. Only in one of these cases, two women supporters of the NLCC (IBC) received gun-shot injuries while returning to the Upper Lines 'after participating in the procession. The case is under in vestigation. The police stepped up patrolling and preventive measures in the aftermath of these cases and no case was reported thereafter. As already mentioned, the armed police picket was restored since 14.6.98.'
9. The Joint Labour Commissioner, North Bengal Zone, Slllgurl in terms of the order dated 3th June, 1988 called a meeting which was attended byCha Bagan Mazdoor Union but not by the other Union. The Joint Labour Commissioner observed after noting down the points raised by Cha Bagan Mazdoor Union that 'the crux of the problem lies on law and order problem arising out of in ter-group rivalry amongst the workmen.
10. In respect of T. No. 678 of 1998 we passed an order on 16lh June, 1998 to the effect as follows :--
'Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to add Allahabad Bank as a party respondent. He is permitted to do so.
The case has been brought by a special mention. Heard ex-parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve notices upon the respondents in cluding Allahabad Bank for hearing on 25th June. 1998.
Pending further order, the respondent Bank is restrained from proceeding in respect of the claim, if any, arising out of the transaction in respect of which the court has passed order in G.A.No. 106 of 1996; Appeal No. 470 of 1998; Matter No.2754 of 1988 on May 22nd, 1997 until further order at any forum other than the instant proceeding.
Put up for hearing on 25th June, 1998.'
11. Thereafter in T. 678 of 1998 we again passed an order dated 25th June, 1998 which is as follows :--
'Although the in stant application has limited scope, it has transpired that in respect of some other dispute between the parties, a fresh application has been filed. It is desirable that both the matters are heard together.
In course of the hearing of the in stant application, it has further transpired that while the petitioners has the willingness to discharge the debt, the respondent Bank has also the willingness to settle the dispute and thus bring the existing controversy between the parties to an end.
Let the application, if any, as stated it is connected with the in stant dispute. If filed, be placed along with the in stant application.
Let the parties come forward with their respective calculations of in terest upon the admitted borrowing at the next date of hearing that is on 2nd July, 1998.
The interim order already passed on 16th June, 1998 shall continue.'
12. Thereafter on 2nd July, 1998 a Division Bench of this court heard T. No. 678 of 1998 and W.P. No. 1329 of 1998 and passed an order as follows :--
'The instant matter, in our view, can be settled without any need of adjudication by the court or the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the petitioners as well as the creditor bank have agreed that as on 30lh September, 1993 the outstanding claim of the creditor bank with in terest upto the said date was at Rs. 498.86 lakhs. The principal amount, it is not disputed, advanced and still due between the parties stands at Rs. 303.12 lakhs. If sincere endeavour is made to arrive at an amicable settlement on condition that creditor bank does not in sist for penal rate of in terest and agrees to come to such rate of in terest which is not too low, that is, the rate of in terest which is reasonable, and the petitioners agree to pay the outstanding ofRs. 498.86 lakhs promptly along with the agreed interest amount or the in terest which is found reasonable by the court, it shall benefit on the one hand the in dustry and on the other hand recover the public money which the creditor bank has choses to advance to the petitioners as credit Learned counsel for the parties have shown due in terest it is indeed time that such transactions are not unnecessarily dragged to the court and settled amicably by some mode of alternative dispute resolution. It is a fit case, in our view, for an order that petitioners pay the outstanding as on 30th September, 1993 and such amount of in terest which is reasonable, subject, however, to any understanding to which parties arrive at or directions that the courts may deem fit and proper.
The matter to appear on next Wednesday (8.7.98) for order, if any.
The in terim order in the meanwhile shall continue.'
13. Thereafter on 8th July. 1998 in respect of T.No. 678 of 1998 and W.P. No. 1329 of 1998 we passed the following order :--
'Heard. Further discussions have narrowed the controversy to (1) the parties agreeing on the mode of payment of the principal amount of outstanding debt as well as the outstanding interest as on 30th September 1993 and (2) further in terest upon the principal amount until the debt is discharged and upon the outstanding in terest amount until the said amount is paid.
It is proposed at the Bar that in such cases the maximum concession which the respondent Bank has granted in other cases should be ascertained and what is found to be reasonable in the case of the petitioner be applied. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, however has brought to our notice that the officers of the Bank at Calcutta are empowered to reduce and agree on lower rate of in terest than the agreed rate of in terest for the loan in such settlements only to a limit and if the concessions in this behalf are going to be beyond the limit for the officers at Calcutta, orders from the superior Officers would be required.
We see, however, no reason to wait, when there is a chance of recovery of dues with in terest which is not unreasonable, for instructions or negotiations any further after knowing from the respondent Bank the minimum to which they have reached in similar cases will give to the court the basis to formulate the payment, if any, in instalments of the principal amount of outstanding debt with the outstanding interest amount which is given in similar cases.
We, accordingly, put up the matter as prayed for on Friday next as the first case 'for order' before appellate side to enable the learned counsel for the Bank to obtain information as aforementioned and place the same before the court'
14. The respondent bank, however, did not bring to our notice any concessions granted by it to any of its constituents who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner company, or otherwise. The petitioner company thus brought to our knowledge concessions granted by Allahabad Bank to one of its constituents as will appear from a letter Issued by the said bank dated25th May, 1991 which is as follows :--
'This is to inform you that the Competent Authority of the Bank has approved the compromise proposal in respect of payment of the Bank's dues of Rs. 214.14 lacs as on 30.12.90, in the following manner and subject to your compliance of the terms and conditions as mentioned hereunder.
1. Compromise Amount: Rs. 147.37 lacs (Rupees one crore forty seven lacs thirty seven thousand)/only against your dues of Rs. 2,14. 14, 325/ 91p. as on 30.12.90. Repayment schedule-
(a) in itial down payment of Rs. 25 lacs (Rupees twenty-flve lacs within 7 days from the date of compromise.
(b) Balance amount to be repaid by quarterly in stalments of Rs. 7 lacs (Rupees seven lacs) each to be repaid in full within the period of 30th September, 1995 and the last in stalment will be Rs. 19.37 lacs.
3. Terms and Conditions.
(a) Over and above the existing securities, the company will arrange for creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank, over the property/ properties, free from all encumbrances with a minimum valuation of Rs.30 lacs (Rupees thirty lacs).
(b) The company will furnish an undertaking to the Bank that they will not dispose of the four flats which are about to be constructed at the top floor of the building situated at Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta without the consent of the Bank in writing.
(c) All the costs for creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank, for valuation of the property will be borne by the Company separately.
Should you be aggreable to accept the above terms and conditions you are requested to confirm your acceptance and arrange for initial down payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty flve lacs) within 7 days from the date hereof.
Yours faithfully,
Chief Manager'.
ANC
15. In respect of the concession so granted, the appellant Bank in an affidavit contended as follows :--
'In connection with the aforesaid, I submit that the case of Jhanshi Fuels and Chemicals Limited was entirely different from the case of Samslng Plantation in dustries Limited, the present petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.'
16. Originally the account of Jhansl Fuel & Chemicals Limited was with erstwhile United in dustrial Bank Limited who sanctioned them in 1986 credit facilities. Subsequently by virtue of merger of the bank with Allahabad Bank as on 31.10.89, Jhansl Fuel & Chemicals Limited became a borrower of Allahabad Bank. As on 31.12.1990, the total dues of that Company with Allahabad Bank amounted to Rs. 214.14 lacs. The loan was secured by personal guarantee of 2 Directors and also a mortgage was credited on the basis of original receipts Issued by the Registrar of Assurances pertainingto a property at 37, Diamond Harbour Road. Calcutta. However, the title deed of the property was not deposited by the borrowers and in the meantime all the residential flats except some portion of commercial/ residential area was sold by the borrowers. Therefore, adequate security was not available to the bank. Since the Bank had in herited this particular borrower from United in dustrial Bank, and the amount due to the Bank was substantially unsecured, it was felt that if litigations continued, the Bank perhaps would not be able to realise anything from this borrower. In such circumstances and for the reasons as stated hereinafter, the Bank was advised and considered it prudent to settle the litigations on the terms as recorded. Further the said borrowers also had various claims against the erstwhile United in dustrial Bank Limited as under :--
(a) The Company demand refund of Rs. 10 Lacs which was paid to a 3rd party at the in stance of erstwhile U1B Limited.
(b) The Company also demanded a refund of Rs. 4.75 Lacs which was paid to another party at the in stance of erstwhile UIB Limited.
(c) The Company also demanded a refund of Rs. 1 Lac paid by them in another account at the in stance of UIB Limited.
(d) The Company also demanded refund of in terest excess charged by the erstwhile UIB Limited and also refund of penal in terest which was charged without any in timation to them by that bank.
17. In view of the claim made by the Company against the bank and also in view of the fact that adequate security was not available to the bank. Allahabad Bank agreed for a compromise for repayment of a sum of Rs. 147.37 Lacs as full and final settlement of Ledger outstanding of Rs. 214.14 Lacs as on 31.12.90. This was accepted to by the Board of the Bank specifically because the security available to the Bank specifically depleted substantially and the advance was granted by erstwhile UIB Limited without proper appraisal and in adequate commercial Judgment.
18. In case of Shamslng Plantations & in dustries Limited the case is entirely different. In fact, the bank assisted by providing term loans as well as giving guarantees to enable this Company to discharge the liability towards state of West Bengal in terms of High Court order. Subsequent to the sanction of loan the value of the property has appreciated substantially and according to the learned counsel of the appellants the value of property is more than Rs. 20 crores. The Company has neither paid any in terest nor in stalment to the bank subsequent to 1993, inspite of the fact that Tea in dustry is having a very good time at the present moment. Therefore, these cases are not similar.
19. Each companies case of the bank is decided upon on individual merits of the case and no two cases are similar. Compromises are entered into taking in to account the ability of the borrowers to pay to the bank and the realisable value of the security charged to the bank.
20. I say that there is no other case similar to the case of the petitioner in which any settlement had been arrived at by Allahabad Bank amountwlse as well as industrywlse.'
21. In that affidavit the Bank also sought to justify its claim of 21.75% interest with quarterly rests. It contended that it is entitled to in terest @ 18.75% and penal interest of 2%.
22. In a matter disposed of by us yesterday we noted that United Bank of India at its Board meeting held on 28th December 1994 adopted a resolution to compromise Its claim against certain Tea Companies. The said resolution is as follows :--
'M.D. Kanoi group (suit A/c) Compromise settlement proposal :
'The Board of Directors directed that the proposal for settlement of the suit accounts and also the writ proceedings in respect of M.D. Kanol Group of Tea Companies was discussed at length by the Board. Taking in to account the poslUon of the suits and writ proceedings which have been pending in the Calcutta High Court for over fiver years and the fact of transfer of controlling in terests in the shareholdings of Bhubrlghat Tea Co, (P) Limited to a third party, the Board of Directors directed that the proposal be further negotiated with the M.D. Kanol Group for compromise settlement of their dues, with a minimum down payment of 20% and the remaining amount of settled dues as proposed in the note over a period 7 years with future in terest at the rate of 12% p.a. (simple) on the reducing balance method. It should be ensured that there is no write-off of book dues in the account and if necessary the sum of Rs. 1.70 crores may be funded with applicable rate of in terest. The entire payment of the said amount will have to be completed within the stipulated period of 2001-2002. In case, payment of the entire settled amount is made within 1998-99. In terest chargeable @ 12% (simple) p.a. may be reduced to 7% (simple) p.a.'.
23. Thus while United Bank of in dia granted concession to certain tea companies by reducing the rate of in terest. Allahabad Bank, while granting concession to a builder company, not only reduced the claim on account of principal, but also totally waived all future interest.
24. At the hearing Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of Allahabad Bank submitted before us that the officers present in court had authority to waive penal in terest and can reduce the claim on account of in terest upto 16% but over and above that their superior officers are required to be consulted. In those circumstances on the last occasion we passed the above order. However, we were not favoured with, as aforesaid, any decision of the Bank concerning grant of concessions in the matter of reduction of interest rate while effecting settlement of its claim.
25. On the contrary when the matter appeared yesterday for judgment it was urged on behalf of the Bank that we have no Jurisdiction in the matter and it is the Debt Recovery Tribunal who is alone entitled to decide upon the claim of the Bank.
26. There is no dispute that in order to comply with the direction of this court two Bank Guarantees were obtained by the petitioner company from the Bank in question. There is also no dispute that the manner and method of in vocation of the said Bank Guarantees have been provided for in a judgment passed by this court. Further, there is no dispute that none of the subject Bank Guarantees has been invoked and in consequence thereof the Bank has paid nothing. However, it is not disputed, that the amount claimed in cludes the amounts of the said Bank Guarantees. In that matter, since the claim of the Bank is in clusive of the amounts of the Bank Guarantees, we surely have Jurisdiction in regard to the claims on account of the said Bank Guarantees.
27. That apart, from the orders set out above, it will be clear that the Bank agreed to the undisputed amount of principal as well as in terest thereon upto a particular date and clearly expressed its in tention to settle a method for recovery of the same as quickly as possible. The dispute was only in regard to the claim of in terest subsequent to the said date which were disputes relating to facts. Once a party agrees to resolve disputes of facts, as the Bank in the in stant case did, as would appear from the orders extracted above, it cannot be hard to submit that the court has no Jurisdiction in the matter.
28. A large number of Banks in in dia are owned and controlled by the Central Government. The United Bank of in dia as well as the Allahabad Bank are controlled by the Central Government. The United Bank of in dia has decided to grant concessions to one of its constituents which is a tea industry. Similarly the Allahabad Bank has granted concession to a builder company. It is true that Banks in in dia are required to follow the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of in dia. The Reserve Bank of in dia, by its Circular dated February 14, 1998, has provided that interest rate in respect of sick/ weak units enjoying facilities over Rs. 2 lakhs under rehabilitation, considered or proposed, may be as per package and thereby granted liberty to the concerned banks to determine such rate of interest having regard to the facts and circumstances of respective cases and not on the basis of any hard and fast rule. There is no dispute about existence of similar such circulars in the past. It appears that the United Bank of in dia, on the basis of such direction of the Reserve Bank of in dia or liberty granted by It, took the decision in respect of one tea industry as recorded in the Board Resolution of the said Bank as extracted above. There cannot also be any dispute that Allahabad on the same or similar basis took a decision in regard to a builder company. There is no reason why two similar instrumentalities under the Central Government will act in a dissimilar fassion, one granting concession to a tea company and another to a builder company; one waiving future in terest altogether and another reducing the same; and one granting concession on the ground security has depleted and the other on the pure spirit of settlement. There again, why concession will be granted to a borrower who has depleted securities and request for concession made by a borrower, who has in crease securities, will not at all be considered? Will it not tantamount to hostile discrimination? There is no dispute that another limb of the Central Government, namely Tea Board, has declared the petitioner Company a sick tea industry. There is also no dispute that from time to time the petitioner/company submitted rehabilitation proposals to the Allahabad Bank. There is also no dispute that the Allahabad Bank, without rejecting after proper consideration the proposals so given, instituted a recovery proceeding. Then again, the United Bank of in dia had also instituted proceedings for recovery of its dues and thereupon gave concessions to its constituent, as would be evidenced from the extracted resolution of its Board of Directors taken on December 28, 1994.
29. Having considered the matter in its entirely, we think Justice demands that it would be the responsibility of all concerned to save the tea industry which employs the largest number of workmen and on which a large number of persons are dependent and at the same time to providesuitable ways and means for recovery of the dues of the Allahabad Bank and accordingly we dispose of all the three applications with the directions as follows :
1. The petitioner/Company shall forthwith, but not later than 48 hours, lift the lock-out of its industry, employ the workmen at work and resume payment of wages on and from the date of lifting of the lock out
2. The Joint Labour Commissioner shall forthwith call the other Unions, namely Jalpalgurl Cha Mazdoor Congress and ascertain from them their grievances, if any, and communicate the same to the petitioner company. In the event, the Joint Labour Commissioner is of the opinion that any of the grievances/requests made by the said Union is reasonable and should be Implemented, it shall Issue necessary directions in that regard. If he is of the view that the grievances are such that an industrial dispute can be raised, he shall then take appropriate steps in regard to that.
3. The in spector General of Police, North Bengal. Superintendent of Police. District Jalpalgurl and Circle in spector, Malbazar, District Jalpalgurl, are directed to see that the Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Stations including of Metal Police Stations. District Jalpalgurl, keep on proper vigil over and in respect of the tea estate of the petitioner company and also the locality surrounding it so that peace and tranqullity is maintained harmoniously and no one is permitted to create any law and order problem in or around the said tea estate.
4. In the event, the petitioner company so desires. It shall be entitled to approach either the in spector General of Police, North Bengal, or the Superintendent of Police. District Jalpalgurl or the Circle in spector, Malbazar, or the Officer-in-Charge, Metal! Police Station to provide police picket at its cost and if such approach is made, the authorities concerned shall provide adequate police picket to the petitioner company as Its cost.
5. We have good reasons to think that the following mode of payment of the amount borrowed by the petitioner shall be reasonable and the Bank can have no reasons to object to the same.
(a) The petitioner shall pay Rs. 303.12 Lacs to Allahabad Bank within 2 1/2 years from the date hereof in monthly in stalments but not less than Rs. 10,00,000/- per month.
(b) in addition thereto the petitioner company shall pay to Allahabad Bank within 2 1/2 years a sum of Rs. 195.74 Lacs, by such monthly in stalments but not of a sum less than Rs. 5,00,000/- per month.
(c) The petitioner company shall pay in terest on the sum of Rs. 303.12 lacs at the rate of 12 per cent (simple) per annum on and from 1st October, 1993 or reducing balance.
(d) The petitioner shall also pay in terest on the sum of Rs. 195.74 lacs at the rate of 9 per cent (simple) per annum on and from 1st October, 1993 on reducing balance.
(e) The entire liability on account of in terest shall be paid by the petitioner company to Allahabad Bank within one year after expiry of two and a half years from the date hereof.
(f) The O.A. No. 241 of 1997 shall remain stayed unconditionally for a period of one month from the date hereof and shall continue to remain stayed in the event of payments as directed above are made.
(g) in the event of non-payment of any of the payments directed to be made herein, the O.A. No. 241 of 1997 will automatically revive and the Bank will be entitled to proceed with the same in accordance with law.
(h) in the event payments are made fn accordance with the directions contained herein, on payment of the last instalment the bank shall enter satisfaction of its claim made in O.A. No. 241 of 1997 and forthwith discharge the securities held by It.
(i) in the event any of the bank guarantees furnished by the bank is in voked by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal in terms of the order of this court dated 22nd May, 1997 and in pursuance therewith the bank makes any payment, the petitioner company shall forthwith reimburse the same to the bank together with in terest thereon at the rate of 16 per cent per annum. In default, the bank shall be entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to recover the same from the petitioner company and others as the bank may be advised.
(j) Since the bank and the petitioner have agreed on the principal amount and interest upto 30th September 1993 and the dispute if any is confirmed to the rate of interest for the period after 30th September 1993, and the Bank has pleaded that any decision in this regard shall come from the higher authorities, we are pursuaded to order as follows :--
1. The petitioner shall follow the above mode of payment and the Bank shall accept the same.
2. On the rate of in terest, however, the respondent Bank shall place the matter at the meeting of the Board and the Board shall in the light of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank and observations in the judgment above decide whether the rate of in terest in dicated above is reasonable. In case the Board shall hold otherwise, it shall state reasons therefor.
3. Respondent Bank shall communicate the Board's resolutions on the rate of in terest to the petitioner.
4. It shall be open to the Bank as well as the petitioner to negotiate further on the rate of interest and in case the Board's resolution is not acceptable to the petitioner. It may move the court in accordance with law. In case however, the petitioner is not able to abide by the mode of payment as above or in terest as determined by the Board, the Bank may take such steps as are required in accordance with law.
All the applications thus stand disposed of without any order as to costs.
All parties to acton a signed xeroxed copy of the Judgment on the usual undertaking.
Barin Ghosh, J.
30. I agree.
Applications disposed of