IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15566 of 2009 1. SHABIHA KHATOON WIDOW OF LATE BADARU ZAMA R/O SADARUDIN CHAK, P.O- HABIBPUR, DISTT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE INDIAN BANK, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, RECOVERY CELL, CIRCLE OFFICE, GOVIND BHAWAN, NEW DAK BANGALA ROAD, PATNA 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE INDIAN BANK, RECOVERY CELL, CIRCLE OFFICE, GOVIND BHAWAN, NEW DAK BANGALA ROAD, PATNA 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, BHAGALPUR BRANCH AT BHAGALPUR ----------- 7 29/03/2010 Petitioner claims herself to be the widow of late Badruzzaman, proprietor of a shop known as Maria Cycle Stores in the town of Bhagalpur. The husband of the petitioner had taken Cash Credit facility from the respondent Indian Bank and there was default in re-payment which led to initiation of a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act). The writ application came to be filed on a bonafide submissions made at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner that she had the intent and purpose to settle the dispute by re-payment. Some kind of protection came to be extended against the action and auction sale of the property which was pledged with the Bank - 2 - against the cash credit facility. Despite several adjournments the position as stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she is not in a position to make any re- payment under this account beyond what has already been deposited by her which was a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 18.12.2009. In this case there is an intervenor who has come and stated in the I.A. application, namely, I.A. No. 830 of 2010 stating therein that the property came to be auction sold on 14.10.2009 and he is the highest bidder and bonafide purchaser. In other words, the protection extended to the petitioner, despite the sale, was with the bonafide belief that the petitioner would be in a position to extricate herself from the rigors of law but with the inability having been expressed on her behalf to meet the obligation at this stage, the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ application with liberty to both the Bank as well as the auction purchaser to assert their rights and take the proceeding to its logical end. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)