THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.17102 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioners obtained housing loan for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs from the respondent Bank by mortgaging the property in question. Since they have committed default, the respondent Bank issued notice, dated 30.06.2006, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation, dated 02.03.2007, to the respondent requesting to grant One Time Settlement in instalments, but the respondent Bank filed Crl.M.P.No.4073 of 2007 under Section 14 of the Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and obtained orders on 14.09.2007 to take physical possession of the property in question, against which, the petitioners filed S.A.No.160 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal”), which in turn, at their request, disposed of the same on 21.05.2010, granting two months time to them for payment of the entire outstanding amount. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “Heard both sides. It is submitted that symbolic possession of the property was not taken and the possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has also not been issued by the Respondent Bank. Further, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the SA itself is not maintainable and hence, it may be dismissed. In the meantime, the counsel for the applicant submitted that if six months time is granted the applicant would repay the entire dues of the respondent bank and settled the matter. In this case, the Demand Notice was issued by the respondent on 30.06.2006 and even after four years of issuance of the demand notice, the applicant has not made any payment to the respondent except the conditional amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs directed by this Tribunal while passing an order of interim stay. Therefore, it is a clear case wherein the applicant has manifested his intention to drag the matter. Under such circumstances, there is no justification for granting of six months time. Further, the contention of the applicant’s counsel was vehemently opposed by the respondent’s counsel. However, with a view to afford one more opportunity to the applicant to repay the dues of the bank and to save the secured asset from being sold, this Tribunal is of the view that two months time shall be granted to the applicant to repay the entire dues as on date to the respondent Bank. Accordingly, the applicant is granted two months time till 21.07.2010 to pay the entire dues to the respondent Bank and settle the matter, failing which the respondent Bank is permitted to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made there under. This SA is disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed this writ petition. When the matter is taken up for admission today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.07.2010 by way of Bankers Cheque drawn in favour of the respondent bank, a copy of which is produced before this Court. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the remaining outstanding amount to the satisfaction of the respondent Bank, if time is granted. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we direct the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) within one week from today and the balance amount to the satisfaction of the respondent Bank, within one week thereafter, in default, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:21.07.2010 Note: Issue CC today. (Bo) sj s