IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10289 of 2007 Between: 1 M/s.Merit Metal Stores and Company, Nellore, represented by its Proprietor Smt.B.Sunitha Bai, w/o S..Batti Murali Singh, r/o Door No.12/172, Yanamalavari Street, Narayanaraopet, Santhapet, Nellore. 2 S.H.Batti Murali Singh, s/o Kishan Singh, r/o Door No.12/172, Yanamalavari Street, Narayanaraopet, Santhapet, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Punjab National Bank, Special Asset Management Department, A.P.Zone, 6-1-73, Saeed Plaza, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, represented by its Regional Manager. 2 Punjab National Bank, G.T.Road, Nellore represented by its Senior Branch Manager 3 Authorized Officer, Secured Creditor, Punjab National Bank, G.T.Road, Nellore. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the possession notice dt.7-5- 2007 issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Rule 9 of the said Rules, in taking possession of the secured property bearing Door No.12/172 Assessment No.15666 consisting of 12 Ankanams situated at Yanamalavari Street, Narayanaraopet, Santhapet, Nellore as illegal, arbitrary and by ignoring the part of the loan to a tune of Rs.1,64,500/- paid by the petitioner to the credit of 1st petitioner's loan account and consequently direct the respondents not to put the Schedule property to public auction by evicting the petitioners from the premises bearing Door No.12/172 Assessment No.15666 consisting of 12 Ankanams situated at Yanamalavari Street, Narayanaraopet, Santhapet, Nellore and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: M R.M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No. 10289 of 2007 ORDER: (Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the possession notice dated 7.5.2007 issued by 3rd respondent under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) and Rule 9 of the said Rules in taking possession of the security property of the petitioners. 2. 1st petitioner has obtained cash credit loan to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- from 2nd respondent and 2nd petitioner who is her husband stood guarantee by creating security interest in respect of his building. 1st respondent issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act demanding the 2nd petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,85,540/- as on 30.11.2006 which is the final amount including principal and interest against the cash credit of Rs.3,50,000/- with further interest from 1.12.2006 and due to non-payment of insalments, the 1st petitioner’s account was classified as Non-Performing Asset, and the 1st respondent-bank was demanding payment of entire outstanding amount. The petitioners approached the 1st respondent-bank and offered to pay the outstanding amount in instalments, which was refused. According to the petitioners, they paid an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- on 30.4.2007, but the 1st respondent-bank having not credited the same to their loan account, has issued the impugned possession notice and taken possession of the secured property on 7.5.2007. 3. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners filed a WPMP No. 12998 of 2007 seeking suspension of the impugned possession notice. This Court, on 16.5.2007, passed an order on the said application granting interim direction subject to the writ petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- within six weeks with the respondent-bank. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have complied with the above conditional order by depositing the amount and according to the learned counsel and basing on the statement of account, the amounts paid by the petitioners were given credit to by the respondent-bank and as on 4.7.2007 the petitioners were due an amount of Rs.3,15,600/- and the entire outstanding amount shall also be paid by them in due course. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners approached the respondents-bank seeking waiver of interest on the ground that the 1st respondent- bank has classified the 1st petitioner’s account as NPA even though she has not committed defaults which would be necessary for treating her account as NPA in terms of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. 5. With the compliance of the conditional order of this Court and the deposits they made, the petitioners have shown their bona fides that they would make further deposits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate and proper to permit the petitioners to pay the entire outstanding amount to the respondents-bank within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the respondents-bank shall be free to take steps against the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to make an application seeking waiver of interest and can take the pleas which are taken here and if such an application is made, the respondent-bank shall pass an order within two weeks thereafter in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioners. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 21.7.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}