IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15909 of 2010 M/S PURNEA COLD STORAGE, THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR AMAR NATH TIWARY, SON OF LATE BIBHTI NATH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MADHUBANI, POLICE STATION K.HAT, DISTRICT MADHUBANI------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800001 2.THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800001 3.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B.NO.7037, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 4.THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAIGANJ BRANCH, WEST BENGAL--------------------------------- RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Anand K.Ojha, Advocate For the respondent Bank:Mr.Dr.Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 4. 16.11.2010 The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the notice dated 18.8.2010 issued by the respondent State Bank of India by which possession of the petitioner’s property has been taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had taken loan of Rs.4,94,40,000/- from the respondent Bank on 6.1.2008 for the purpose of the cold storage. However, it is claimed that on account of unprecedented floods in the Kosi river the petitioner suffered huge losses. It is also claimed that the Insurance Company had not been fair in the matter of settling the 2 same with respect to which dispute is pending before the National Consumer Commission and the admitted amount to the tune of Rs.86,55,077/- received from the Insurance Company had been deposited with the respondent Bank apart from a further amount of Rs.48.084 lacs received from the Government of Bihar under the Industrial Policy, 2006/National Horticulture Mission. According to the Bank, even after giving the benefit of the said amount the dues in the petitioner’s account come to Rs.4,15,85,553/-. The petitioner has given a proposal to the Bank that in addition to the above the petitioner shall deposit in the loan account any further amount to be received from the Insurance Company out of Rs.1.58,23,930/- claimed by him, and further the petitioner is ready and willing to pay to the Bank an amount of Rs.35 lacs every year along with interest. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank informs that the Bank has already rejected the said proposal as according to the Bank if the petitioner is serious and sincere to liquidate his loan then he must pay 25% of the balance amount forthwith and the remaining amount in instalments by March, 2011. 3 This Court in its writ jurisdiction does not consider it a fit matter where any positive direction can be given to the Bank to accept the compromise proposal submitted by the petitioner, since admittedly it will take not less than a period of ten years for the entire loan amount to be liquidated in terms of the compromise proposal. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to sit with the authorities of the Bank and enter into any settlement or compromise as may be acceptable to it in terms of policy of the Bank and the guidelines of the Reserve Bank in this regard. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/