IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3743 of 2007 1. JAINENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE RAM KESHWAR SINHA 2. SMT. RAMBRAT DEVI WIFE OF SRI JAINENDRA KUMAR BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA QUAMRUDDIN GANJ, P.O. & P.S. LAHERI, DISTRICT NALANDA PROPRIETOR OF BHARAT HAND MADE PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS AT BIHARSHARIF. Versus 1. UNITED BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE 16 OLD COURT HOUSE STREET CALCUTTA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BIHAR REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ABHAY BHAWAN, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA. 3. UNITED BANK OF INDIA THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BIHAR REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ABHAY BHAWAN, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA. 4. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BIHAR REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ABHAYA BHAWAN, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA. 5. BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BIHARSHARIF BRANCH, P.O. & P.S. SOHSARAI IN THE DISTRICT OF NALANDA. ----------- 2 15/02/2010 Whatever may be the reason indicated in the present writ application for failure of the petitioner to abide by the settlement which was entered between the parties way back on 27.5.2004, the fact is that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to honour the settlement which compelled the authorities to withdraw the compromise proposal vide Annexure-1 as also take action under the Securitisation and - 2 - Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (shortly the SARFAESI Act.) which is annexure- 1/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner now wants this Court to direct the respondents to revive the earlier compromise proposal, quash annexure-1 and give him an opportunity to now make lump sum payment to settle the outstanding dues. The submission or prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not supported by any law. In view of the same, no direction of any kind can be issued. As for the wish of the petitioner to resolve the issue by making payment is concerned, his bonafide will be tested by the kind of offer he makes to the Bank coupled with the conduct or action to be taken by him in furtherance of the offer. It does not require any intervention or any direction by this Court in the writ in question. This writ application is disposed of with the observation made above. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)