THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 27353 OF 2006 DATED: 4.2.2008 Between: Konathala Hema Petitioner And The Branch Manager, The Visakhapatnam Cooperative Bank Limited, Narsipatnam District. Respondent THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 27353 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Bank in initiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) by issuing notice dated 18.12.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Act without following the procedure contemplated under the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that if a notice is to be issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, minimum 60 days time has to be given for payment of the amount due; that the respondent has not issued any such notice and that notice dated 5.12.2006 issued to the petitioner demanding her to pay the amount within one week does not specify as to whether the same has been issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and by the said notice the respondent has given only one week time to clear the dues contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the impugned notice has to be set aside. This court while admitting the writ petition on 2.1.2007 has passed the following interim order; “There shall be interim directions as prayed for subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of six weeks from today. In default, the interim order shall stand vacated automatically without further reference to the Court and the authorities are at liberty to proceed with the matter as per law”. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent Bank has filed a detailed counter affidavit along with a vacate stay petition. It is the case of the respondent Bank that they have not initiated any proceedings so far under the provisions of the Act; that the petitioner herein approached the respondent Bank on 10.4.2006 with a representation to repay the arrears of loan in a short period and since she failed to adhere to the promise made by her and since all the borrowers, to whom she stood as guarantor have failed to repay the dues, the overdraft accounts were classified as non- performing assets. It is also the case of the respondent Bank that in the circumstances stated above, they issued demand notice dated 5.12.2006 requesting all the borrowers to pay the amounts due within a week’s time duly intimating the borrowers as well as the guarantor that on default, the respondent Bank will initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Act and since the petitioner and other borrowers failed to give response to the notice, the respondent Bank issued notice dated 18.12.2006 stating that the Bank will proceed under Section 13(2) of the provisions of the Act. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already complied with the condition imposed by this Court while granting the interim order and that to pay the balance of loan amount, he requested for one month’s time for which the learned counsel for the respondent has also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of granting one month’s time from today to the petitioner to pay the balance of loan amount. In default, the respondent Bank is at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 4.2.2008 msv