IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10994 of 2008 ASHA DEVI Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan For the Bank : M/s Mahesh narayan Parbat, Ved Prakash Shrivastava and Sanjay Kr. Jha. 4 26.9.2008 Petitioner had in the year 2003 availed of housing loan from the respondent- Punjab National Bank totaling to Rs. 6 lakh. He was given to understand that there is moratorium of 18 months and the repayment would be in 60 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000/- as EMI. Petitioner submitted that even before 18 months period of moratorium expired , he started receiving threatening letters from the Bank with regard to non- discharge of his liability. Ultimately, petitioner started paying Rs. 10,000/- as EMI, only to be then confronted with the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforement of Security Interest Act ( hereinafter referred to as ‘SRFAESI ACT’) treating the petitioner to be a defaulter. This brought the petitioner here. On behalf of respondent- Bank, a counter affidavit has been filed in which the agreement, as executed, has been annexed . It is accepted that the officers of the Bank were not conversant with the transaction and as such they issued threatening letters from time to time. With reference to the agreement it was pointed out that it was hosuing loan of Rs. 6 lakh granted at 8.25 % interest but future interest was floating interest.The agreement itself states that EMI was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- plus interest at PLR.This Court may point out that this statement in the agreement is misleading. EMI is the equated monthly instalment and that represents the net liability - 2 - discharge figure per month.It doesnot have a suffix of plus interest at ELR. Bank, in my view, actually wanted to convey that there would be a principal repayament of Rs. 10,000/- per month along with accured interest. However, this does not detain us because the petitioner was given a passbook in which interest accured, payments made were all duly recorded; none of the figures is disbutable. The result is because of some misunderstanding between the Bank and the petitioner, the petitioner has been left with a substantial undischarged liability. In my view, there being a bonafide dispute, the Bank ought not to have been resorted to SRFAESI proceeding instead ought to have settled the matter with the petitioner. In my view, if the petitioner pays up the over due as of 1st December, 2008 then he would be liable to be extended the benefit of the subsisting accrual to liquidate the balance in the manner stipulated therein to be Rs. 10,000/- per month towards principal plus monthly accrual interest at PLR. Petitioner would be considered by the Bank as this Court find equitable for any other relief that may be given because this Court must notice that the correspondences addressed to the petitioner were in fact quite misleading and unwarranted. In the hope that the matter would amicably be settled, this writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. The SRFAESI proceeding would be kept in abeyance for a period of thee months from today. In between ,the parties should come to a settlement. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)