1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 350 OF 2010 Subhashchandra Babbar. ... ... Petitioner. Versus Bank of Maharashtra. ... ... ... Respondent. Ms. Radha Mitra for the Petitioner. Mr. K. A. Suryanarayan for the Respondent. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 15TH JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, we are not inclined to show any indulgence since the procedure adopted by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the amount from the petitioner, in our view, is just and proper and as per the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the said Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out to us any violation or breach committed by the respondent Bank in respect of the procedure undertaken by the respondent Bank. In that view of the matter, the action of the Bank is just and proper. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prayed for one month 2 time to deposit the balance amount as demanded by the respondent Bank vide demand notice dated 24th October, 2009. Learned Counsel for the Bank does not have objection for grant of one month time. 4. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted one month time from today to deposit the amount as demanded by the bank vide demand notice dated 24th October, 2009, failing which the bank is free to take further action in accordance with law. Sd/- (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)