The writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier was disposed of recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea raised with reference to the nature of the property being an 'agricultural property' and exempted by virtue of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act was not intended to be pressed any further and sought for the benefit of instalments to clear the entire liability. It was accordingly, that the petitioner was permitted to liquidate liability by way of 8 equal instalments beginning from 20.12.2014. The case of the petitioner is that, it was not so intended and as such, the petitioner wants to pursue the challenge with reference to the nature of the property contending that the respondent Bank is not entitled to invoke the remedy under SARFAESI Act. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as well. After considering the nature of the contentions raised and also Review Petition No.989 of 2014 2 the circumstances under which the writ petition was intended to be disposed of (based on the submission made by the learned counsel), this Court finds that there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of record. However, since this Court does not intend to cause any embarrassment to the learned lawyer, as against the wish of the petitioner, if it be so, this review petition stands disposed of leaving the issue open. The benefit given by this Court as per judgment dated 19.11.2014 will stand recalled.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
sj