IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1118 of 2011 1. Nanosati Ice & Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd. having its office at Village- Nanosati, P.S.-Majhaulia, District-West Champaran through its Managing Director, Subhas Prasad. 2. Subhas Prasad, S/o Shri Baijnath Prasad, R/o Village- Nanosati, P.S.-Majhaulia, District-West Champaran. …… Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Bank of India, Second Floor, Patna Main Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 through its Chief Manager,. 2. Chief Manager, 3. General Manager, 4. Deputy General Manager, 5. Assistant Manager, 6. Estate Manager All Officers of State Bank of India, Second Floor, Patna Main Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001. ……… Respondents Ist Party. 7. The State Bank of India, Bettiah Branch, Bettiah, through its Branch Manager. 8. Chief Manager (Rural), State Bank of India, Region-5, Muzaffarpur. …….. Respondent 2nd Party. For the petitioners : Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent Bank : Dr. Binay Kr. Singh, Advocate. ----------- 3. 04.02.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to get the dispute resolved by means of conciliation proceeding in terms of Section 11 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The fact of the case is that in the year 2000, petitioners established a Cold Storage for potato and fruits etc. and for that purpose he took loan from the respondent bank. - 2 - Subsequently on 31.03.2007 loan of the petitioners was declared as N.P.A. and thereafter on 30.06.2010 (Annexure-3) notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued, but although the petitioners claim that some meeting was held, there is no statement that any objection under section 13(3A) of the Act was filed and ultimately steps under section 13(4) of the Act were taken on 16.09.2010 (Annexure-7) and notice was published in the newspaper on 22.09.2010. 4. It transpires that only thereafter on 24.09.2010 (Annexure-8) and 20.11.2010 (Annexure-9) representations were filed by the petitioners before the respondent authorities for referring the matter of loss and damages caused to the petitioners for arbitration in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Now the petitioners are aggrieved that the said applications for arbitration are not being considered by the authorities concerned. 5. It is quite apparent that the loan of the petitioners had been declared N.P.A. more than three years back and the application for arbitration has been filed only after the entire procedure under section 13 of the Act had been completed and the appeal filed by the petitioners under section 17 of the Act is pending before the appellate authority. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the respondents to rake up the matter for arbitration under section 11 of the Act and hence no relief in that regard can be legally granted to the petitioners. 6. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is - 3 - dismissed. However, this matter can be very well considered and decided by the appellate authority in the appeal pending before the Tribunal. Sujit (S. N. Hussain, J.)