AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—In these writ petitions, Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus against the Respondent-Bank to open the lock which was allegedly, illegally put to the premises belonging to the 1st Petitioner and to award damages as well as to pass such other necessary orders as are just and equitable.
The 1st Petitioner has availed loan from the Respondent-Bank in the year 2008 in a sum of Rs. 31.00 lakhs. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the tenants in the property belonging to the 1st Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, he was regular in payment of equated monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 31,431/- as per the agreement. The schedule of repayment is spread over a period of 240 months.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of payment of regular installments and only on account of some lapse on the part of the Petitioner in discharging the dues within time during the year 2009, the Respondent-Bank initiated measures under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and illegally dispossessed the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed S.A. No. 195/2010 and obtained the interim order. However, the said order having been subsequently vacated, the Petitioner was dispossessed from the premises and later the proceedings initiated before the DRT ended in dismissal of the application. In this background, the Petitioner approached this Court challenging the coercive measures initiated including the action of dispossession of the Petitioner from the schedule property.
This Court granted an interim order on 28.10.2010 as prayed for on condition that the Petitioner deposits Rs. 3.00 lakhs within four weeks from 28.10.2010. The Petitioner has admittedly deposited the said sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs within the time stipulated and has been also put back in possession of the premises as per the interim order granted. Thereafter, the Petitioner has paid certain sum of money reflecting the installments due.
In the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the short point that requires to be considered in this writ petition is:
Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to avail the benefit of the equated monthly installments granted by the Bank as per the loan agreement to continue to pay the amount?
The Respondent-Bank has filed a memo of calculation dated 24.08.2011 stating that certain dues are still to be discharged by the Petitioner as he has not regularly paid the installments. He has contended that out of the total amount recoverable in a sum of Rs. 12,01,896/-, an amount of Rs. 8,99,103/- only is paid and the balance is still due. He submits that if the balance amount is paid, the Respondent Bank would extend the benefit of equated monthly installments in terms of the agreement.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the memo of calculation filed by the Respondent does not reflect the correct figures as the interest is not calculated on daily product, basis. It is submitted by him that the Petitioner is willing to discharge the dues which are legally payable and continue to pay hereafter the monthly installments that may fall due in accordance with the agreement entered into with the bank.
In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is given two weeks time to file a written representation along with calculation before the Respondent-Bank stating the amount due from him in terms of the agreement. Thereafter the Respondent-Bank after considering the said representation, shall issue a communication to the Petitioner by calculating the dues strictly in accordance with the agreement entered into between the Petitioner arid itself, keeping in mind the calculation made by the Petitioner and the amount payable by the Petitioner, within a period of 10 days thereafter. After receipt of the communication by the Bank, the Petitioner shall pay all the said dues within a further period of two weeks. If the Petitioner does not pay the said dues, then the Bank will be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.
Petition is accordingly disposed of Misc.W.6507/2011 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed as having become unnecessary.