AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Learned counsel for the respondents files counter affidavit. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 14-5-2010 as well as 4-8-2010 contained in Annexure No. 9 and 17 respectively.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to proceed further in view of the impugned notice dated 14-5-2010 as well as 4-8-2010 contained in Annexure No. 9 and 17 respectively.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to permit the petitioner to continue repayment of the loan as per the terms of the agreement for payment of instalments.
iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
v) Allow the Writ Petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and along with the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has annexed letter dated September 13, 2010 sent by the respondent-Bank to the proprietor of the petitioner firm as Annexure-2 to supplementary affidavit.
By a perusal of the said letter (Annexure-2 to supplementary affidavit), it reveals that (1)since the working capital account of the firm became out of order for want of FY 2009 financials of the firm and due to non-submission of the monthly stock statement as per the terms of sanction, the account of the petitioner-firm has been classified as NPA w.e.f. December 28, 2009 on the intervention of Statutory Auditors of the Bank and (2) despite repeated reminders, the firm did not get the Foreign Letter of Credit (FLC) with additional exposure of Rs. 34.50 Lakh on the firm by the Bank.
It appears that instead of making a representation before the Bank concerned, the petitioner approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is obvious from the aforesaid letter of the Deputy General Manager of the respondents dated 13-9-2010 that the petitioner was advised by the respondent to regularize all the accounts immediately.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of instruction received from his client, who is present in the Court, has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount of Rs. 34.50 Lacs within a period of six months.
As per provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, the petitioner has also a right to make a statutory representation before the Bank concerned.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation before the respondents within a period of one week from today. If the representation is so made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of taking into consideration this aspect that the petitioner is ready to pay the defaulted amount within a reasonable period.
Till the decision is taken by the respondent-Bank, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner by the respondents.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.