IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20712 of 2010 Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Late Ravneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village-Nauhatta, Police Station-Nauhatta, District-Saharsa. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3. The Central Bank of India through the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa. 4. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa. …….Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to A.A.A.G-13. For Central Bank : Mr. Mahendra Pathak, Advocate. --------- 03/ 04.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the Central Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents concerned, namely the Bank authorities, to calculate the bank loan account of the petitioner in his presence and thereafter to provide a reasonable time period to the petitioner so that he may deposit the entire amount for the purpose of business and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner had taken loan and his business had failed, whereafter an order under the provision 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) had been passed and an exparte judgment dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure-2) had also been passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A. Case - 2 - No.06 of 2007. Furthermore, in view of the aforesaid orders, the District Magistrate, Saharsha had passed order dated 16.11.2010 for coercive action against the petitioner. 4. After some arguments by learned counsel for both the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to pay the entire amount due with interest but some reasonable time must be granted to him for that purpose. The offer appears to be reasonable and genuine as learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of his client that he will deposit the entire loan amount as directed by the authorities with interest within two months from today positively. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to comply the undertaking given on his behalf by his counsel before this court within the said period, i.e. by 07th of March, 2011 and till that date the respondents-authorities shall not take any coercive action against him. However, it may be noted that if the petitioner fails to comply his own undertaking as aforesaid and does not deposit the amount with interest as directed by the authorities entirely by the said date, the authorities concerned shall be at liberty to take all stern and coercive action against the petitioner who will also be liable for contempt of this court by violating the undertaking given on his behalf before this court. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)