IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 2841 of 2008 1. M/S SUMER DAIRY & FOOD PRODUCTS, A PARTNERSHIP FORM HAVING ITS OFFICE AND FACTORY AT SOBH (SULLEBATTA) PO BHADYA, BARACHATTI, GAYA THROUGH PARTNER, BIJAY NARAIN SINGH 2. MAHESHWAR PD SINGH, S/O SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH, PARTNER OF M/S SUMER DAIRY & FOOD PRODUCTS 3. BIJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE AWADH BIHARI SINGH, PARTNER OF M/S SUMER DAIRY & FOOD PRODUCTS, PARTNERSHIP FORM OF SOBH, PO - BHADYA, BARACHATTI, DIST - GAYA … PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT DELHI AND BRANCH OFFICE OF BARACHATTI, DIST - GAYA AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GAYA, A P COLONY, GAYA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BARACHATTI, GAYA, DIST - GAYA 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BARACHATTI, GAYA … RESPONDENTS ---------- 2 22.10.2008 Heard the parties. C W J C No 4899 of 2008 was disposed of by order dated 16.04.2008. Petitioner was proceeded against by Punjab National Bank in terms of Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). The Bank had recalled a term loan granted in the year 2006 and, as such, petitioners were liable to clear the entire term loan without even having a chance to fully operate the unit. Considering the inequitous position, this Court stayed all proceedings by the Bank for a period of six months and gave liberty to the petitioners to liquidate the entire dues amount with interest by 15th of October, 2008. By this application, prayer has been made to extend this time in view of the fact that subsidy of Rs 25 lacs is due to the petitioners and secondly, a sum of Rs 5,25,000/- is also due to the petitioners from insurance claim through the Bank. If these two are taken into account alongwith amounts already paid then only 2 about rupees three and half lacs will remain to be paid. In my view, entitlement of subsidy and insurance claim were facts which had taken place long before this Court passed the order on 16.04.2008. They are not subsequent developments. In that view of the matter, there is no justification for extension of time as fixed by this Court. However, I may observe that once petitioners liquidate the entire dues then any amount that the Bank receives purporting to be on behalf of petitioners, may it be subsidy or insurance claim or any other amount, Bank would be obliged to forthwith remit the same to the petitioners notwithstanding the petitioners having closed its banking relationship with the said Bank. As a matter of last indulgence, petitioners are given time upto 15th December, 2008 to liquidate the entire dues with interest. No further extension on any ground whatsoever would be granted by this Court. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)