IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2304 of 2009 M/S. DWARAKADHISH AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, A company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, having its registered office at 9, Narmada Apartment, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna and having its works at NH-30, Bihta, District Patna through its Director, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, son of Late-S.N.Sharma, resident of 105-A, Hari Om Apartment, Exhibition Road, P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The UCO Bank, Head Office, 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700001, through its Executive Director. 2. The Executive Director, UCO Bank, Head Office, 10, B.T.M., Sarani, Kolkata-700001. 3. The Chief Officer, UCO Bank, 10,B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700001. 4. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Patna 4th Floor, Block-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 5. The Chief Officer (Recovery), Zonal Office, Patna, 4th Floor, Block-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 6. The Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Fraser Road Branch, Fraser Road, Patna. …….Respondents. ----------- 02. 05.08.2009 The petitioner was sanctioned term loan and cash credit by the UCO Bank for setting up an agro industrial manufacturing Unit. Having invested enormous amount and taken loan from the Bank, they set up a unit and subsequently defaulted in meeting its debt liability. As such SARFAESI proceedings were initiated that was challenged in a writ petition which was disposed of by order dated 06.04.2009. The facts were noted therein wherein this Court had granted time up to 31st of July, 2009 to the petitioner to clear the balance amount of Rs. 63 lacs. Petitioner states that out of Rs. 63 lacs, he has already paid about Rs. 15 lacs. He was entitled to receive 2 about Rs. 40 lacs as subsidy from the Central Government which has got delayed for which he had filed a writ application. He has been asked to approach the Central Government in that regards. He submits that no sooner that payment is made by the Central Government, he would liquidate the dues of the Bank. Mrs. Nilu Agarawal, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that from perusal of the order passed earlier would show that the order was not in any manner conditioned upon subsidy amount being paid or available. Having considered the matter, in my view, the prayer of the petitioner is simply for a further accommodation to liquidate the dues in the order passed in the writ petition. This Court has noted the manner in which petitioner had showed his bona-fide intentions to liquidate the dues that had persuaded this Court to pass order therein. Considering the said facts and circumstances, I direct that by 31st of October, 2009 the petitioner would liquidate the entire dues whether he gets any subsidy from the Central Government or not. There would be no further extension. However, it is expected that the Bank would cooperate in the manner to ensure that the subsidy is made available to the petitioner because subsidy is the amount which is payable to subsidize cost of capital goods 3 utilized for establishing the unit. If that subsidy is not paid in time the unit is bound to become sick and get into a dead crap as appears in the present case. If only by help petition recover money which should have been given to the petitioner long before and if it would come at time, they would not have defaulted at all. Unfortunately Bank would only be ensuring that it receive its due in time. With these observations and directions the application stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)