IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15229 of 2010 Between: M/s.Jai Hanuman Trading Company, rep. by its proprietor M.Raju and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Karur Vysya Bank Limted, Hyderabad, rep. by its Authorised Officer .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15229 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) and possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’), by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The facts, in brief, are that the 1st petitioner is carrying on the business of trading of rice and had availed clean overdraft facility from the respondent-Bank for Rs.3.5 lakhs in the year 2005; the 2nd petitioner though initially availed housing loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad, in the year 2003, subsequently, got transferred the same to the respondent-Bank in the month of March, 2004. It is stated that the respondent-Bank has published a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act in Indian Express and Andhra Jyothi daily news papers on 21.01.2010 alleging that the petitioners have committed default in payment of term loan of Rs.8,18,724.66, and clear overdraft of Rs.7,77,568.36, totaling to Rs.15,96,293.02 as on 31.05.2009. The 1st petitioner has sent a reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act through letter dated 24.02.2010 requesting the respondent-Bank to reschedule the loan accounts. The said request was rejected by the respondent-Bank through its letter dated 06.03.2010 and directed him to remit the dues. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the respondent- Bank through an offer letter dated 31.03.2010 requesting to consider their case under One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and the respondent-Bank has, through its letter dated 31.03.2010, accepted the offer made by the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.14 lakhs in full and final settlement of their accounts with the following terms and conditions. “1. You should remit an initial amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs before 31.03.2010. 2. The balance amount of Rs.11,00,000 (Eleven Lakhs) should be paid on or before 30.04.2010 failing which all the concessions/relief’s extended will be cancelled and Bank will proceed legally. 3. The above OTS is without prejudice to the Bank’s right to proceed against you, the borrowers/guarantors legally to recover the dues in full.” It is stated that the petitioners have paid Rs.3 lakhs on the same day and requested the respondent-Bank to extend the time till 15.05.2010 to pay the balance amount. It is stated that, in view of the severe market crunch in the trading of rice and bereavement in their family, they could not pay the balance amount in time. Since the petitioners could not repay the amounts due in time, the respondent-Bank has issued a possession notice dated 15.06.2010 under Section 13(4) of the Act. On the same day, the 1st petitioner has requested the respondent-Bank to extend 60 days time to pay the balance amount but the respondent-Bank has rejected the said request on the ground that the possession notice dated 15.06.2010 was published in the news papers on 17.06.2010. Hence, the Writ Petition. Be that as it may, when the matter came up for hearing on 30.06.2010, the learned counsel for petitioners stated that the petitioners could not pay the balance amount in view of the bereavement in their family and severe market crunch and that they are ready to pay the balance amount if they were to be given 60 days time. To put an end to the lis, we have asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank to obtain instructions in this regard and also directed the petitioners to file an affidavit undertaking to pay the balance of Rs.11,00,000/- within 60 days and posted the matter to today. Today, the learned counsel for both sides present and the learned counsel for the petitioners placed for the perusal of this Court an affidavit purported to have been given by Sri M.Raju, the 1st petitioner herein, on behalf of both the petitioners, undertaking to pay the balance amount of Rs.11 lakhs within a period of 60 days from today. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has, on instructions, accepted for the same. The said undertaking is recorded. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of and in accordance with the undertaking given by the 1st petitioner on behalf of both the petitioners. In case the petitioners make the payment within 60 days from today, the respondent-Bank shall return the title deeds to them. If the petitioners fail to make payment within 60 days from today, the respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. 2nd July 2010 CVRK