IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.136 of 2011 ----------- M/S Trisole India Pharmaceuticals a proprietorship firm having its place of business at Industrial Area, Hajipur, District Vaishali through its Proprietor Abu Mohammad son of Late Abdur Rab, Resident of Mohalla Labagh, P.S. Pirbahore, Town and District-Patna. ………Petitioner- Petitioner. Versus 1. The United Commercial Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 2. The Assistant General Manager, United Commercial Bank, Zonal Office, Mauryalok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna. 3. The Chief Manager, United Commercial Bank, Patna Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna. 4. The Authorised Officer, United Commercial Bank, Patna Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna. 5. The Principle Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Director of Industries, Bihar, Patna. Respondent-Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashi Shekhar, A.C. to S.C. 9 For UCO Bank : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ---------- 04/ 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 14.03.2011 by which this Court dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 342 of 2011 after coming to the conclusion that the authorities of respondent-Bank have tried their best to help the petitioner by restructuring the loan but inspite of that the petitioner remained a wilful and continuous defaulter and did not even challenge the declaration of the respondent-Bank about the securities becoming non-performing assets, nor even letter dated 18.09.2010 (Annexure-6) sent by the respondent-Bank rejecting the request of the petitioner for providing financial aid has been challenged. In these facts - 2 - and circumstances, it transpired that the respondents had throughout acted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, fair play and equity and had taken steps as per the rules of procedure. Hence, it was found that neither any impugned action/step taken by the respondents required to be interfered with nor they could be legally restrained from proceeding with the matter under the provision of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and perusing the said order, it transpires that there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any material which convinces this Court to take a different view. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)