1 DB SAW No. 306/2010 SBBJ & Anr. Vs Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR (1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 306/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9333/2009 State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Another Versus Smt. Pushpa Devi & Another. Date of Order: 17.05.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Meena V. Gomber,J. Mr. G.K. Garg, for the appellants. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This special appeal is directed against impugned order dated 08.01.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of respondents against impugned notice dated 01.06.2009. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that a sum of Rs. 2,13,599/- was payable by respondents against loan amount, as on 01.04.2009 but learned Single Judge has reduced the said amount to Rs. 2,10,000/-. Therefore, not only a sum of Rs. 3,599/- has been reduced from total 2 DB SAW No. 306/2010 SBBJ & Anr. Vs Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr. outstanding amount against respondents, but further interest payable up to the date of payment has also been reduced. According to appellants, a sum of Rs. 37,675/- was payable towards interest in addition to expenses, but the same was not taken into consideration by learned Single Judge. Therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of respondents. 5. There is no dispute, even according to learned counsel for the appellants, that a total sum of Rs. 2,13,599/- was payable as on 01.04.2009 and this amount includes all types of interests also payable by the respondents. Learned Single Judge has observed that as per interim directions, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been deposited by the loanee and he has offered that he is ready to pay a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- against total due of Rs. 2,13,599/- stated by the Bank. 3 DB SAW No. 306/2010 SBBJ & Anr. Vs Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr. 6. Learned Single Judge observed that: “When R.B.I. at one place issuing guideline for settlement of loan amount, then it is surprising that despite of readiness shown by the petitioner to make payment of loan along with interest (payable on 1.4.2009), leaving a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and odd, then also respondents have not answered positively. In any case, this Court is to balance the equity and to look into the interest of the parties, if recovery of the loan amount is effected to a great-extent, it remains always beneficial for the bank. This is for the reason that recovery of loand amount takes time and may need to incur expenses.” 7. From the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, it becomes quite clear that officers of appellant-Bank were not interested in settling the account, but their intention was only to sell the property of the loanee by exercising their powers conferred by Parliament under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 8. The appellant-Bank has preferred this special appeal only feeling aggrieved with the reduction of amount by learned Single Judge to the extent of Rs. 3,559/- with 4 DB SAW No. 306/2010 SBBJ & Anr. Vs Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr. further petty amount towards interest till the date of payment. 9. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. 10. It is relevant to mention that learned counsel for the appellants admitted that he contended before the learned Single Judge that at least a liberty may be granted to the Bank that in case the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge is not paid by loanee by 15.03.2010, then the Bank may be given liberty to pursue the recovery as otherwise initiated. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants frankly admitted that the loanee has deposited the entire amount as per directions of the learned Single Judge before due date. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any force in this special appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limini. (Meena V. Gomber),J. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj Item No.1.