1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.11816 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 G.K.Kannan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Devadanapatti Branch, Theni District. 2.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Mount Road, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the files of the 1st respondent pertaining to the Notice dated 04.10.2011 published in Dina Thanthi dated 08.10.2011 with regard to Sl.No.3, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents to forthwith consider his representation dated 07.10.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for quashing the Notice, dated 14.10.2011, published in 'Dina Thanthi' dated 08.10.2011 with regard to Sl.No.3, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents to forthwith consider his representation dated 07.10.2011. 2.Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the respondents bank initiated action against the petitioner on the ground that he defaulted in payment of loan instalments. It is further contended that the petitioner has not deliberately defaulted and he has paid all the instalments from the date of commencement of the loan and due to financial constraint, he could not mobilise funds to pay eight monthly instalments and now he is ready to undertake to pay the outstanding instalment arrears amount as on date, so that the bank may drop any further action. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that as on date, after issue of notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Section 13 (4) notice has also been issued and the property is likely to be brought for auction on the ground of default in payment of loan instalments and as such the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.We have carefully considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record. 4.The fact remains that the petitioner is a borrower and he has committed default in payment of instalments in respect of the loan availed by him from the 1st respondent bank. It is needless to state that the respondent Bank has rightly initiated action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. It is pertinent to note that already the petitioner has been served with Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) Notices. The petitioner mainly pleaded sympathy and sought for the relief of permitting him to pay the defaulted instalment amounts within a time frame. However, we find it very difficult to interfere in this matter, more particularly in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. The petitioner can very well avail other statutory remedies available under SARFAESI Act or other Acts. It is also open to the petitioner to approach the respondent bank to work out any amicable settlement. 5.With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Devadanapatti Branch, Theni District. 2.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Mount Road, Chennai. gb ORDER IN WP(MD)No.11816/2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Dated:13.10.2011 TR :14.10.2011: 2p/3c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/