Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioners took Cash Credit Facility from the respondent no.3-State Bank of India. The property in question was given as security for the said facility.
The petitioners committed default in respect of the said facility. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Securitization Act") have been initiated against the petitioners. Possession Notice dated 13th May, 2011 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) has been issued in this regard.
We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, and Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010(8) SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act.
Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that the petitioners do not want to question the merits of the proceedings being taken under the Securitization Act and want to pay the entire outstanding dues with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in case reasonable time is given to the petitioners for making the deposit in instalments.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondent-Bank states that the contesting respondent-Bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioners provided the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- within one month from today, and further deposit the balance amount in two equal quarterly instalments.
In view of the above, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the Writ Petition, by giving the following directions :
1.The petitioners will clear-off the entire outstanding dues along with interest, penal interest and expenses on pro-rata basis.
2- The entire outstanding dues shall be paid in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs. Rs.2,30,000/- shall be paid within one month and, thereafter, the remaining amount will be paid in two equal quarterly instalments.
3- Initially the recovery proceedings are stayed for a month. On depositing the first instalment, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed upto the date of next instalment and the process shall continue until the last instalment has been paid.
4- If the petitioners deposit the entire amount as undertaken by the petitioners in the manner indicated above, the proceedings shall stand withdrawn.
5- If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of any one instament within the stipulated period, the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
6- The cost and recovery charges, if any, shall be paid along with the last instalment.
It is made clear that this order has been passed on the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Bank, and we have not adjudicated the claim on merits.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.
Order Date :- 20.5.2011 AK