Manjula Chellur,CJ
W.P.(C) No. 11628 of 2014 was filed by respondent herein challenging Ext.P5 notice. The fact remains, writ petitioner took loan of `23 lakhs for starting a petroleum retail outlet at Nilambur. According to the appellant-bank, in spite of availing cash credit facility, she was not in a position to pay the installments regularly and ultimately they were forced to issue notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI) Act.
2. Earlier, W.P.(C) No.2897 of 2014 was filed wherein directions were given to consider the application of the borrower for One Time Settlement. The fact remains, the one time settlement benefit could not be extended to the writ petitioner.
3. Now the question is, whether learned Single Judge was justified in granting 15 equal monthly installments starting from 15.5.2014? Apparently, 1st installment commencing from 15.5.2014 was paid by her. Learned counsel for appellant submits, in the light of judgment of Apex Court, without any sufficient reason, learned Judge ought not have entertained the matter by granting 15 equal monthly installments as indicated in the judgment. The amount due is about `25 lakhs as on today.
4. According to learned counsel appearing for respondent, the business was closed, which is denied by appellant's counsel. The fact remains, learned Judge has indicated that even if single default of 15 monthly installment occurs, benefit of the order will not come to the aid of writ petitioner. The amount being `25 lakhs and interest due on such amount, we are of the opinion, 15 equal monthly installments is justified in the facts and circumstances of the matter and we find no good reason to proceed further.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
sj 24/05