THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10334 of 2009 Dated: 30.6.2010 Between: M/S. Nagu Traders ..PETITIONER And The I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. ..RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10334 of 2009 Order: (Per Sri Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Assailing the auction sale notice dated 29.4.2009 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act), putting the residential buildings in question to sale, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner is a borrower. It has availed overdraft facility of Rs. 35,50,000/- from the respondent-bank. The petitioner committed default in payment of the credit facility amount. Subsequently, it became a non- performing asset and the respondent bank issued notice dated 8.2.2008 demanding to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.37,49,823/-.It further stated that it has cleared substantial amounts and the respondent-bank without giving proper credits of the amounts paid by it is demanding a huge amount. It also requested for providing O.T.S. facility, but the respondent did not extend the said facility. Subsequently, the respondent-bank issued the impugned notice bringing the residential buildings in question to auction- cum-sale. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 28.5.2009 granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded amount within a period of six weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner has cleared substantial portion of the loan amount, the respondent- bank is demanding huge amount without giving proper credits to the amounts already paid by it. He further stated that even though the petitioner made an application to the bank requesting it to provide O.T.S. facility, the respondent bank has not extended the said facility. He further contended that even though the petitioner requested the bank to provide the statement of accounts giving the particulars of the payments made by it, the respondent-bank did not furnish the details. It, however, proceeded to issue notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and thereafter issued the impugned auction notice putting the residential buildings in question to sale. On the other hand, Sri J. Lokesh Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank submitted that the respondent- bank has been sending the accounts statement regularly to the petitioner. He also denied the receipt of any application from the petitioner with regard to providing of O.T.S. facility. He further stated that the petitioner did not take any steps even in pursuance of the notice issued under Sections 13(2) of the Act and possession was also taken. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is interested in clearing off the dues and it would make appropriate application to the respondent-bank requesting it to provide the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account of the petitioner being maintained with the respondent-bank and it may be directed to furnish the necessary details. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the learned counsel for the petitioner to make appropriate application to the respondent-bank seeking to furnish the accounts statement and other details within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such application being made by the petitioner, the respondent-bank shall provide the necessary accounts statement giving the details of the payments made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. On such details being furnished by the bank, the petitioner shall clear off the outstanding amounts, which are due and payable by it to the respondent-bank within a period of four months, failing which, the bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 30th June, 2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J pnb