CWP 3888/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.3888/2010 Smt. Pooja Rani Babber Versus State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 23/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Bhupendra Pareek, for petitioner. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the proceedings initiated by the financial institution under provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. The petitioner is a principal debtor. When her account became NPA, proceedings were initiated U/s 13(2) of the Act and after expiry of the statutory period, a notice U/s 13(4) of the Act was duly served upon the petitioner and the respondents took symbolic possession vide order dt.10/02/2010 (Anx.2). Counsel submits that after the proceedings were initiated, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 47,500/- after symbolic possession was taken by the respondents and if time is granted to her, she will manage to make full and final payment of the outstanding dues. In the opinion of this Court, the submission is without substance for the reason that the proceedings under the Act, 2002 are CWP 3888/2010 [2] initiated only after the account of principal debtor becomes NPA and after the notice was served U/s 13(4) of the Act, 60 days time was available to the principal debtor or the guarantor, as the case may be, to submit their objections and meet out outstanding dues. Only after expiry of the statutory period, the financial institution initiated proceedings U/s 13(4) of the Act and took symbolic possession of the property mortgaged and at this stage, if the debtor is aggrieved, remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 is available. As regards the submission made that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 47,500/- after the symbolic possession has been taken over by the financial institution, suffice it to say that merely depositing partial amount will not preclude the respondents from initiating under the Act, 2002. Counsel further submits that the Presiding Officer is on leave. This submission is also of no substance as the petitioner has not preferred any appeal so far and if at all the Presiding Officer is on leave, there must be some provision for transfer of urgent matters by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.2/ 3888CW2010final.doc