AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Suri Appa Rao, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed in A.S.A. No. 443/2009 on the file of the D.R.T., Bangalore. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:
The petitioners availed loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of overdraft as working capital offering stock and book debts as primary security. The 2nd petitioner mortgaged the schedule property to the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank sanctioned the overdraft facility during the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 5,53,000/- to the overdraft account and pleaded for one time settlement. Meanwhile, the respondent-Bank has published a sale notice of the schedule property on 10.07.2009. The petitioners therefore filed an appeal before the D.R.T., Bangalore u/s 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act in A.S.A. No. 443/2009. The Tribunal granted interim stay subject to condition that the petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on or before 16.09.2009. Accordingly, the petitioners deposited the said amount by way of demand draft. He also further deposited another amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of another demand draft. The respondent-Bank sent another letter to the petitioners intimating the sale of the schedule property even though the stay order was in force. Consequently, A.S.A.
No. 443/2009 came to be dismissed. The Respondent-Bank thereafter published the sale notice on 07.07.2010 fixing the reserve price at Rs. 50,98,000/- and the total liability of the petitioners is only Rs. 14,53,467/- plus interest as on 02.07.2010. The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the D.R.T., Bangalore.
The respondent-Bank filed statement of objections contending that if at all the petitioners had any grievance against the order passed by the DRT, Bangalore, they should have approached DRAT, Chennai challenging the order passed by the DRT, Bangalore, but they failed to approach DRAT, Chennai. He further contended that the respondent-Bank after following the procedure issued sale notice and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is therefore required to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners approached the respondent-Bank for one time settlement, the same was not considered by the respondent-Bank.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that though the petitioner has paid principal amount still an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs approximately is due to the respondent.
In that view of the matter, when the petitioners submitted application for one time settlement it is for the respondent-Bank to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the respondent-Bank is directed to consider and dispose of the application within three months from the date of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.