IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.578 of 2011 ANAND KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF BHARAT GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA IDGAH ROAD, POLICE STATION-ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA, PIN CODE- 800 007. …..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 2. ZONAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, UCO BANK, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-A, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, NEW DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, POLICE STATION-KOTWALI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, ‘JEEVAN DEEP’ L.I.C. BUILDING, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA-800 001. ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate. For the respondent-Bank : Mrs. Sheela Sharma & Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, A. C. to G. P. V. ---------- 09/ 07.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing notice dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure-1) issued by the authorities of the UCO Bank, Patna under the provision of Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’ for the sake of brevity) demanding Rs.6,45,028.00 as per the earlier notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-2). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have annexed a statement of loan account at page-20 of their counter affidavit in which it has been specifically mentioned that the total balance remained to be paid by the - 2 - petitioner was Rs.5,47,892.00 and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the same to the respondents. He further submits that the said statement of account shows that the amount of Rs.5,47,892.00 included normal interest, penal interest and other interest also up till 06.01.2011. He also claims that the respondents are illegally claiming more money, although Explanation-B to Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act specifically defines ‘amount outstanding’ which shall include principal, interest and any other dues payable by the borrower to the secured creditor in respect of secured asset as per the books of account of the secured creditor. He avers that in the said circumstances, paragraph 15 of the supplementary counter affidavit wrongly showed total due of Rs.9,21,568.00. He thus asserts that the said amount also included provisional commission, provisional expense for publication, provisional other expenses which have not been shown in the statement of account, nor are they legally payable by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the amount of Rs.5,47,892.00 shown in the statement of account was only as per the book liability of the respondent-Bank whereas the interest has not been accounted for as the account of the petitioner had become non-performing assets on 31.03.2009. 5. In the said circumstances, the matter includes disputed questions of fact which can be well decided in an appeal - 3 - which is specifically provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the appellate authority as per the provisions of law. The petitioner will be at liberty to file an interlocutory application for interim reliefs which shall be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law expeditiously. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)