IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16942 of 2007 NARENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 15.09.2008 The petitioner was granted cash credit facility from the respondent-UCO Bank, Bettiah. Late 2005 and early in 2006 petitioner’s daughter was very seriously ill and had to be reached to Delhi where she was treated at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Because of her ailment and treatment petitioner defaulted in servicing the account, result being that on 21.02.2006 respondents sealed petitioner’s shop without even preparing inventory and without notice to the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that till day i.e. two and half years the respondents have refused to reopen the shop and even insisting of repayment/liquidation of cash credit facility. It is submitted that if petitioner was permitted to do his business he would have long since repaid the amount either from business or by selling part of his shop. But, on one hand, the respondent-Bank restrains the petitioner from either dealing with the stocks or doing business. On the other hand, they have scheduled the sale of the shop with the stocks on 20th of September 2008. Petitioner undertakes to pay the entire dues outstanding in the account, provided he is granted instalments. A counter affidavit has been filed. This explains nothing as to why, the shop was sealed and remained sealed for two and half years with stocks over Rs. 20 lakhs. Thus, depriving of petitioner of means to - 2 - repay the debt in the facts aforesaid, in my view, and in view of the fair stand of the learned counsel for the Bank that Bank is not interested either in the shop or its stock nor is interested in selling the same, so long as petitioner makes satisfactory arrangement to liquidate his debts. In my view, it would be highly inequitous to permit the Bank to take steps in the special facts and circumstances of this case. I accordingly direct that the dues being about above Rs. 5 lakhs now almost about Rs. 6 lakhs major part, whereof, is just interest. Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 1 lakh by 30th of September 2008, another Rs. 1 lakh in October 2008, another Rs. 1 lakh in November 2008 and similarly the last instalment being in February, whereby, he would deposit not only Rs. 1 lakh, but, the total interest accrued till that date, so as to clear the accounts completely. Petitioner maintaining the above said repayment schedule Bank would not take any further action for sale of petitioner’s shop or the stocks, therein. If the petitioner fails in any one instalment for any reason, whatsoever, Bank would be free to proceed against the petitioner for sale of his shop or his stocks, as if no order had been passed by this Court granting any indulgence to the petitioner. On petitioner depositing Rs. 50,000/- as part of the first instalment of Rs. 1 lakh the petitioner’s shop would be unsealed and the stocks released to the petitioner. In view of this order, in my view, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)