The petitioner admittedly is a defaulter having availed of certain amounts in the name of a company, in which he is the Director and for which collateral security was furnished by way of mortgaging personal properties, of his wife and her mother. The petitioner has a contention that in fact, notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (SARFAESI) 2002, only as against the company and that the petitioner was issued with only a carbon copy of such notice. Definitely, when a carbon copy of notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, that would enable him to file an objection before the authorized officer. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that such an objection was filed and the petitioner by Ext.P1 categorically acceded to the W.P.(C) No. 9017 of 2014 2 demand for satisfaction of the debt and sought time upto 13.06.2014; within which time, it was undertaken that the amounts due would be paid and settled. The petitioner being a chronic defaulter, who has many a time resilied from his undertaking cannot be granted any further indulgence is the contention of the learned counsel for the Bank.
3. However, taking into consideration, the persuasive arguments made on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is deemed fit that the recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, be kept in abeyance on condition of the petitioner satisfying the entire arrears in 10 instalments. The respondent Bank on production of the certified copy of this judgment shall issue a statement of account as on 30.06.2014 and the petitioner shall settle the same in ten instalments starting from 13.07.2014 and following up by regular payments on the 13th of the succeeding months. If one default is committed, the respondent Bank would be entitled to revive the recovery proceedings initiated from the stage at which, this W.P.(C) No. 9017 of 2014 3 Court has kept it in abeyance. The petitioner shall not be entitled to take any grounds on the proceedings hitherto taken. On payment of the instalments as directed above, the respondent Bank shall raise a demand with respect to the future interest from 30.06.2014, which shall be remitted as the 11th instalment on the next succeeding 13th.
4. If at all, the respondent Bank has a One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS), the petitioner would be entitled to approach the respondent Bank for the same. If that is allowed, the settlement shall be in accordance with the orders passed by the Bank. However, the instalments as directed above shall be made in accordance with the directions above and no prayer for OTS can entitle the petitioner to keep such instalments in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.