IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9662 of 2010 SONIA DEVI, wife of Ramji Prasad Gupta, resident of Mohalla- Guru Nanak Pura, P.S. Sasaram, District- Rohtas….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE CANARA BANK having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road Bangalore through its Chairman and Managing Director. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank, Head office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore (Karnataka) 3. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Lav Kush Tower, Patna 4. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Lav Kush Tower, Patna 5. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Office, Sararam (Rohtas) 6. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Branch Office, Sasram (Rohtas) …… Respondents. ----------- 2. 29.6.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court for setting aside the sale notice dated 29.5.2010 issued by the authorized officer of the Canara Bank, Sasaram under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The admitted fact is that the son of the petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises, was granted cash credit loan limit of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the loan Account No. ODCC No. 5288, which was sanctioned and disbursed in the name of the petitioner’s son. The petitioner stood as guarantor and also created equitable mortgate in favour of the Bank over her immovable household property bearing C.S. Plot Nos. 82 and 88, Thana No.135, Ward No.10/3 M.S. Plot Nos. 718 and 731 - 2 - Holding No.1851, area 17.5 dhurs situated at Guru Nanak Pura, Karan Sarai, P.S. Sasaram in the town of Sasaram, District-Rohtas and pursuant to the same the original title deed was deposited with the Bank. The son of the petitioner having defaulted in depositing the sale proceeds in the account and also in payment of interest to the Bank, several requests were made by the Bank to deposit the loan amount but the same was not deposited by the petitioner. Ultimately, the Bank was compelled to make the account N.P.A. on 1.4.2005. Subsequently, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued in which a demand was made for payment of an amount of Rs. 4,91,386/- which included interest till 30.8.2006 and on failure of the petitioner to take steps in the matter of payment, the sale notice was also published on 28.3.2008. The possession notice had earlier been issued on 5.11.2007 and published in the newspaper on 8.11.2007. The petitioner and her son filed SARFAESO Appeal no.21 of 2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna and an order of stay of the sale notice was also passed by the DRT on 24.4.2008. Ultimately, the matter was disposed of by order dated 8.10.2009 by the DRT on the basis - 3 - of a petition of compromise filed by the petitioner,s son which was also addressed to the Branch Manager of the Bank in which it was stated that whatever loan amount is there in the said account, he will deposit the same by January,2010. He, however, did not deposit the entire amount by January, 2010. The Bank, accordingly, issued the sale notice dated 29.5.2010, which has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies upon the statement of account for the period from 1.1.2009 to 3.6.3010 issued by the Bank in which it is stated that the balance under the said loan amount has been shown as Rs.51,162/- In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, it is stated that the actual amount due against the petitioner as on date including all interest till 30.6.2010 comes to Rs.3,81,329/- and not Rs. 51,162/-. It is stated by learned counsel for the Bank that the discrepancy has arisen because earlier the accounts were maintained on manual basis and subsequently there was computerization in which also there have been several changes from time to time, as a result whereof the - 4 - interest from 1.4.2005 on the said N.P.A. account was not being shown in the account for a substantial period of time and this has resulted in the statement of account issued for the aforesaid period by the Bank. Learned counsel also submits that since the initial notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act showed an amount of Rs.4,91,386/- with interest till 31.8.2006, the petitioner was well aware of the entire liability existing against her and she cannot be permitted to rely upon the discrepancy which has arisen in the account due to the computerization process. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to counter the said stand on any rational basis, except to rely upon the inaccurate statement of account issued by the Bank itself for the recent period. He does not deny the fact that in the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act the amount shown was substantially higher as Rs. 4,91,386/- nor can he show as to how the said amount got reduced to Rs.3,68,823/- on 1.4.2005 as shown in the latest statement of account produced by him, when the petitioner or her son had not, in the meantime, deposited any substantial amount leading to the said deduction. - 5 - Learned counsel for the Bank has also produced the details of the account from 1.4.2005 prepared manually showing the interest thereon and other charges also, and the deposit made by the petitioner, on the basis of which the balance as on 30.6.2010 is shown as Rs. 3,80,072/-; a copy of the said statement of account has also been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Bank that the actual dues are more or less what has been stated in the counter affidavit and in the manual written account as produced today, although there is a slight variation in the two amounts. Be that as it may, any such account which may have arithmetical error, is also open to question and settlement by the parties on the basis of the actual facts and merely because the Bank has issued written statement of account from 1.4.2005 to 30.6.2010, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner’s liability for paying the higher amount on the basis of the interest accrued from 1.4.2005 has vanished. Learned counsel for the petitioner is - 6 - unable to present any fair proposal before this Court which, under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, may be considered by the Court. He is simply harping on the fact that the account given by the Bank shows a balance of only Rs.51,162/-. In the above circumstances considering the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )