IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11678 of 2009 Between: K.Hari Padma Prasad. … Petitioner And State Bank of India, represented by its Chief Manager & authorised officer and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11678 of 2009 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) This writ petition is filed challenging the measures taken by the respondent-Bank for taking physical possession of the property, for due recovery of the loan amount under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”) for an amount of Rs.78,64,993/- Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.57,83,000/- after issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and a representation was made to the Bank on 13.01.2009 for one time settlement. While the said representation is pending, the Bank took measures to take possession of the property. This Court, while issuing notice before admission by order dated 24.09.2009 stayed further proceedings, on condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs within a period of two months and an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within one month thereafter. Meanwhile, the Bank agreed for one time settlement, on petitioner paying 75% of the loan amount within 30 days from 21.10.2009 and the balance of 75% paid in lumpsum or in instalments within six months, but not later than 31.03.2010. In view of the one time settlement, as agreed and communicated by the Bank in its letter, dated 21.10.2009, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, as no further orders are necessary. It is needless to say that if the petitioner has not complied with the one time settlement scheme, the bank is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 08th February 2010 lmv