w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Soundrya Silk Process v/s The Authorized Officer & Chief Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Bangalore

    Writ Petition No. 6761 of 2013 (GM-RES)

    Decided On, 04 August 2015

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: Sunil S Choudhari for Rajendra C. Desai Assts, Advocates. For the Respondent: B.V. Krishna, Advocate.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the order passed by the 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18.01.2013, in Crl. Misc. 8428/2012 vide Ann-G and etc.)

1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.01.2013 impugned a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioner had also sought that the respondent-bank be directed not to proceed further under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

2. The fact that the petitioner had borrowed the loan amounting to a sum of Rs. 98,00,000/- is the accepted position. The fact that the petitioner had not discharged the entire loan cannot also be disputed. It is in that light, the respondent-bank having treated the account as NPA proceeded further to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In that light, they had filed the petition under Section 14 of the said Act seeking to take physical possession of the property that had been mortgaged. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

3. This Court while entertaining the petition at the first instance had passed a conditional order dated 08.02.2013. While passing the said order, this Court had taken note of the contention of the petitioner that only a sum of Rs. 23,40,000/- is due and the petitioner would take steps to clear the said loan and had also indicated that the petitioner has three other properties which are mortgaged to the bank and in that view, he would handover possession of any one of the properties instead of handing over the possession of the property regarding which the action had been initiated under Section 14 of the Act. It is in that light, this Court had directed that the petitioner in order to show their bonafides has to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the bank on or before 15.02.2013. It was further ordered that the remaining dues shall be cleared within three weeks thereafter.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions would submit that the interim order has not been complied. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however state that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid on 14.02.2013 and another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on 25.02.2013. This is to be verified by the bank. Even if that be the position, the entire sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as directed by this Court had not been paid before 15.02.2013.

5. Be that as it may, since an offer is being made by the petitioner to settle the account with the respondent, one more opportunity is required to be granted. In that view, the petitioner in addition to depositing the balance amount which had been indicated in the first order shall also take steps to settle the loan as had been indicated in the very same order to clear the dues within three weeks.

6. Therefore, to provide such opportunity, the petitioner is now granted six weeks time to settle the loan with the respondent in the manner he proposes and if it is acceptable to the respondents. Until the expiry of the said six weeks, the respondent shall not precipitate the matter. Needless to mention that if at the end of six weeks, the petitioner does not settle the matter with the respondent or secure such accommodation from the respondents themselves, no further indulgence can be shown to the petitioner.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.