THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 6982 of 2010 11-06-2010 BETWEEN; M/s.Sterile Ethicals, rep. by Managing prtner ...Petitioner vs. The Authorised Officer, Bank of India, Visakhapatnam and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.6982 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This writ petition should fail for a plurality of reasons. The petitioner availed a cash credit facility of Rs.9 lakhs from the Ban of India, Visakhapatnam (which is not impleaded as a respondent in th writ petition). The secured creditor determined the loan account of th petitioner as a non performing asset (NPA) and issued a notice dated 03 01-2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction o Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for sho “the Securitisation Act”) calling upon the petitioner to repay the outstandin amount of Rs.8,99,386/- within sixty (60) days from the date of notic failing which further proceedings under the Securitisation Act would b initiated. It is not clear from the pleadings as to whether the borrowe lodged objections to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of th Securitisation Act. In para.2 of the writ petition, a vague assertion is made that th respondent without considering the petitioner’s representation in its righ perspective proceeded further and issued a possession notice unde Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. The secured creditor issued possession notice dated 25-08-2007 under Section 13(4) read with Rul 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitione preferred S.A No. 107 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribuna Visakhapatnam against the possession proceedings. It would appear tha the S.A was dismissed on 23-07-2009 granting a months time fo settlement with the secured creditor. Thereafter, the petitioner file I.A.No.509 of 2009 in S.A.No.107 of 2007 seeking further six months fo payment of Rs.7 lakhs which was the one time settlement offered by th secured creditor. The Tribunal by the order dated 12-11-2009 granted tw months to the petitioner for clearing its liability to the secured creditor (o the principles of natural justice). The petitioner however failed to clear the liability within the tim granted by the learned Tribunal and has approached this cou complaining that the Tribunal should have granted further time and seek grant of further time for clearing the liability. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, firstly, for the reason th petitioner failed to implead the secured creditor- the Bank of India an instead has only impleaded the Authorised officer of the Bank and th Branch Manager, who are mere employees of the bank. Another reason fo declining relief is that the petitioner failed to make out any legal ground fo interference with the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisatio Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not defaulted, on th terms of repayment or that the loan account was illegally declared as NPA nor even that there was any legal infirmity either in the initiation o proceedings under Section 13(2) or the issuance of possession notic under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act or in the process of takin possession of the secured asset. Whether the bank should have granted onetime settlement and if so on what conditions including as to instalmen are all matters predominantly within the managerial discretion of the bank This court is not constituted an appellate authority on the manageria discretion of the bank, nor is the DRT so empowered. On the aforesai analysis, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 11th JUNE 2010. TSNR