HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26162 of 2009 Date: 9.3.2010 Between: Md. Rahmathulla and others. Petitioners And State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26162 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first petitioner. Petitioners 1 and 3 have availed the loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from Rajampet Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad, the 4th respondent herein, on 28.2.2006. Petitioners 1 and 2 have availed the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the same Branch on 25.3.2007. Different items of property were offered as security for repayment thereof. There was some irregularity in repayment of the loan amount. The respondents extended the benefit of settling the first loan account on payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- and accordingly the said amount was paid and the loan was liquidated. For the other loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-, One Time Settlement on payment of Rs, 2,59,000/- by 22.12.2009 was offered by the 4th respondent. This was reiterated by the respondents through their letter dated 28.8.2009. On the ground that the petitioners did not pay the amount as indicated by the respondents, steps were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the ‘SARFECASI Act’) and the properties that were offered as security for both the loans were proposed to be sold. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the action of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Out of the two loans secured by the petitioners herein, one was admittedly closed on payment of Rs.1,80,000/-. However, the documents relating to the property that were offered as security were not released. So far as the second loan is concerned, the respondents themselves offered to close it on payment of Rs.2,59,000/-. It is no doubt true that there was some delay on the part of the petitioners in availing that facility. The fact however remains that the respondents did not withdraw their offer to close the account of receipt of Rs.2,59,000/-. While issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and such deposit was made on 18.12.2009. While the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the One Time Settlement, the respondents need to be compensated for the delayed payments. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside on condition that: (a) the petitioners shall pay the balance of Rs,1,09,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 22.12.2009 upto the date of payment, which shall not be later than 31.3.2010. (b) the petitioners shall also be under obligation to pay interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,50,000/- from 22.10.2009 upto 18.12.2009 before 31.3.2010. On payment of the amounts as indicated above, the two suits filed by the respondents for recovery of the suit amounts shall be closed as being without any cause of action. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 9th March, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in three days. B/o pnb