IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.914 of 2010 M/S Maitri Traders, through its Proprietor Aman Kumar Singh, S/o Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh, resident of Shiv Kuti, Panchwati Chowk, Muhalla- Gang-Jala, District- Saharsa. …….Petitioner….Appellant. Versus 1. Uco Bank, through Chairman/Managing Director, Head Office 10, V.T.M. Sarani, Braborn Road, Calcutta- 700001. 2. The Zonal Manager, Uco Bank Zonal Office, Sona Jagshwar Complex, Traffic Chowk, Begusarai. 3. The Authorized Officer, Uco Bank, Sona Jagshwari Complex, Traffic Chowk, Begusarai. 4. Sr. Manager, Uco Bank, Dharmsala Road, Saharsa. 5. The Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Dharmsala Road, Saharsa. …..Respondents…Respondents. ----------- 05- 24.3.2011 Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh for the appellant, and Ms. Nilu Agrawal for the respondents. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 19.4.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4151 of 2010 (M/s Maitri Traders vs. UCO Bank and others), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner for further financial accommodation to pay back the loan and/or measures for restructuring in terms of section-9 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 2 The appellant had taken loan from the respondent Bank and failed to pay back the same as per the agreed schedule. However, the matter was taken up by the Lok Adalat and an agreement was reached, whereby the parties agreed that the Bank would waive the interest but the rest shall have to be repaid. The appellant failed to carry out the terms of the agreement, as a result of which the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The Bank thereafter took steps in terms of section 13 of the Act. The same was stayed by this Court by order dated 21.5.2010. The appellant creates a very poor impression in our mind and seem to act in breach of its promises at every stage. 4. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this appeal. The interim order dated 21.5.2010, automatically stands vacated. The Bank is free to proceed in accordance with law for realization of its dues. (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/