IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 10397 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA S/O SRI SHRAVAN KUMAR BAJORIA R/O 2ND FLOOR, GANPATI PLAZA, KHALIFABAGH CHOWK, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 2. BIMLA DEVI BAJORIA W/O SRI SHRAVAN KUMAR BAJORIA R/O 2ND FLOOR, GANPATI PLAZA, KHALIFABAGH CHOWK, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR 12, OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, KOLKATA 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL JAIL ROAD, BHAGALPUR 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK BAZAR BRANCH, D.N. SINGH ROAD, BHAGALPUR ----------- 3 29.09.2010 The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to close housing loan accounts by 30th of May, 2010. So far as their three business cash credits and other accounts are concerned, petitioners were given time upto 30th of August, 2010 to settle the matter and liquidate the dues. In the meantime, Bank was restrained from proceeding further under SARFAESI Act, 2002. So far as housing loan is concerned, petitioners admit that they delayed in payment but have now paid the compromised amount in full. They want back their title documents of the house in question. So far as the other three loans are concerned, they want more time to clear them. In the meantime, they are disputing about the amount and non-furnishing of accounts. Mrs Nilu Agarwal appearing for the Bank states that petitioners had earlier mentioned that they had FDRs in the Bank which ought to be adjusted. This Court had directed the petitioners to write to the Bank instructing them to adjust the same. Admittedly, petitioners have not done so. Mrs Agarwal points out that they cannot do so because the 2 FDRs were already appropriated towards the outstanding loan way back in the year, 2004 to the knowledge of the petitioners. Be that as it may, petitioners have failed to comply with Court’s order and indulgence granted by this Court on all accounts. So far as the housing loan is concerned, that having been liquidated, I do not think so the Bank would be justified in proceeding as against the said property for the said loan. That account should stand closed but so far as other accounts are concerned, this Court is not in a position to extend the time any further. It is for the petitioners to approach the Bank for any compromise and it would be open to the Bank to take any steps as it may be advised. Mr Kejriwal then submits that before the expiry of period fixed by this Court that is 30th August 2010, the Bank having taken steps to precipitate the matter under SARFAESI Act, father of petitioner No 1 has filed another writ petition which is pending. As per the petitioners, that action was contrary to the order passed by this Court earlier. In my view, the stand of the petitioners is misconceived. The moment petitioners defaulted in complying with any part of the order, as passed earlier, Bank was free to take action. There is nothing wrong in it. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)