IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.687 of 2010 1. NANDAN GHAR SANSAR DEVELOPER'S PVT. LTD., THROUGH S.N.SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, S/O DR. SIYARAM SHARAN SINGH 'SAROJ' R/O SAROJ COMPLES, MOTIJHEEL, MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.- MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR .....Appellant Versus 1. THE UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE BIPTABI TARALLOKYA BHAWAN, MAHARAJ SARANI BARABOUM ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE AT MORYALOK, 2ND FLOOR, PATNA 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, UCO BANK, MUZAFFARPUR BRANCH, JAWAHARLAL ROAD, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BIRI BAZAR, KALYANI, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE PRESIDENT, ASSETS RE-CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT SRIPATI ARCADE, AUGUST KRANTI MARG, NAND CHOWK, MUMBAI- 400036 ........Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate For the UCO Bank: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the ARCIL: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate ----------- 12 19-07-2010 Heard the parties and perused the impugned order of the writ court dated 4-3-2010 whereby appellant’s writ petition bearing CWJC No. 627/2009 has been dismissed on the ground that writ petitioner is not remedy less as he has forum available under the law or under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The writ court noticed certain relevant facts including the order of stay passed in the writ proceeding on 28-1-2009 against the respondent-Bank and subsequent developments 2 including certain relevant facts which had taken place prior to the interim order passed on 28-1-2009 by the writ court. On hearing the parties, we find that the appellant/ writ petitioner had approached the writ court for a simple direction to the Bank to advance further money because the writ petitioner as an entrepreneur and borrower of the bank needed more money to overcome certain difficulties. It further appears that before the writ court could pass the interim order the Bank had taken steps under the SARFAESI Act and account of appellant had been declared as Non Performing Assets. It further appears that the intervener which is Assets Reconstruction Company, an authority created under SARFAESI Act, has been allowed to pay the outstanding loan dues of the writ petitioner to the Bank in question. The intervener has not been able to take possession of the property although they have paid the outstanding dues to the Bank, on account of interim order passed in the writ petition. It further appears that the matter under the 3 SARFAESI Act is pending at the stage of Section 13 (iv) of that Act and in case any party is aggrieved by the decision under that provision of the Act, he has right to appeal under section 17. Having seriously considered the entire facts and circumstances and the submissions, we are of the view that the writ court cannot be faulted and no interference is required. As an entrepreneur, the writ petitioner will always be at liberty to take steps to satisfy the Bank and the authorities under the SARFAESI Act if he wants his account to be released from the category of Non Performing Assets. In our view, the matter should now be left to the authorities under the SARFAESI Act to be thrashed out in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)