IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.6389 of 2009 Between: M/s. Western Feeds Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director C. Balasubramanyam, S/o. Late Chandra Sekhar, Aged 48 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.204, Alpine Towers, Kavadiguda, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 6-3-1109/P/202, Second Floor, Jewel Pavan Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad -85, Rep. by its Authorised Officer. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28-3-2009 for one time settlement of the loan by granting two months time for payment of the claim amount. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.NAGA RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.6389 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Heard both counsel. The petitioner herein obtained a loan from the State Bank of Hyderabad. When the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the State Bank of Hyderabad initiated proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”). The petitioner filed S.A.No.80 of 2004 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the Debt Recovery Tribunal, vide order, dated 03-11-2008, made the following order:- “Counsel for applicant is present. It is submitted that his client wants to approach respondent bank for settlement with concessions. Counsel for applicant also requested to grant some time for payment of claim made by the bank. Heard both counsels. The applicant is permitted to approach respondent bank for OTS and for certain concessions and if respondent bank considers the request of applicant the settlement amount shall be payable by applicant on or before 25-03-2009. However, it is made clear that the applicant shall submit the proposal to the respondent bank within one week from the date of this order irrespective of receipt of copy of order and the said proposal of applicant for OTS shall be disposed off by respondent bank on or before 30-11-2008. It is also made clear that the settlement amount or if there is no settlement, the entire amount shall be payable to the respondent bank on or before 25-03-2009. If applicant fails to pay the settlement amount the bank will be at liberty to proceed under SARFAESI Act as per the procedure of law. Each party shall bear their own costs. With the above said observations, the S.A. is disposed of.” Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made representation dated 06-11-2008, before the respondent bank, since the Debt is purchased by the respondent bank from the State Bank of Hyderabad. The offer of the petitioner for One Time Settlement was said to have been accepted in January 2008, subject to payment of Rs.70,00,000/- before March, 2008, but it is stated that the said amount was not paid. Thereafter, the petitioner made a fresh proposal once again on 27-02-2009 i.e., after one year, proposing to settle the account under One Time Settlement by paying a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-, but the said proposal was rejected by the respondent bank vide letter, dated 02-03-2009 and the petitioner was called upon to pay entire amount of Rs.3,73,31,977/- along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner once again made a fresh representation, dated 18-03-2009, before the respondent bank proposing to pay a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- towards full and final settlement for all the liabilities payable to the respondent bank, but the said representation has not been considered and disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner in making repeated requests for One Time Settlement. However, if the petitioner deposits 50% of the offer amount i.e., Rs.40,00,000/- within four weeks from today, the respondent bank will consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent bank to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 18-03-2009, subject to payment of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 30-04-2009. In default, it is open to the respondent bank to reject the offer made by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. Till 30-04-2009, the respondent bank shall not take any coercive steps. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Prv