IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3202 of 2011 1. AMARJEET SINGH, SON OF SHRI SHASHANK SHEKHAR SINGH 2. NUTAN SINGH, WIFE OF SHRI AMARJEET SINGH BOTH RESIDENTS OF 4 H/61, BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA…………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE BANK BHAWAN 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, MUMBAI-400021 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NASHEMAN MAJHARUL HAQUE PATH, PATNA. 3. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, NASHEMAN MAHJARUL HAQUE PATH, PATNA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, S.K. NAGAR BRANCH, DISTRICT PATNA. ………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : M/s Gautam Kejriwal and Akash Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Aditya Sharan, Prabhat Kr. Sharan and Hemant Kr. Sharan, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 15.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging letter dated 20.09.2010 issued by the respondent-Authorized Officer of the Union Bank of India, Zonal Office, Fraser Road, Patna by which the representation filed by the petitioners under section 13(3)(A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was rejected and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Although respondent no.4 had earlier filed a - 2 - counter affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner, but subsequently a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Union Bank of India in which it is stated that calculation of overdue amount, as is clear from letter dated 09.03.2011 of the Branch Manager addressed to his client, comes to Rs.1,95,359.00 as on 28.02.2011 plus legal expenses, but the amount of legal expenses has not been mentioned by the respondent. In the said letter dated 09.03.2011(Annexure-1) it is specifically stated that the Bank is ready to upgrade loan account of the petitioner from N.P.A. to Standard Class, if the borrowers pay the full instalment overdue amount which comes to Rs.1,95,359.00 plus legal expenses which has not been mentioned. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the fair stand taken by the respondent, this court directs the petitioners to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,95,359.00 plus legal expenses of Rs.10,000.00 within four weeks from today positively to the respondent Bank and if it is so done, the respondent Bank must upgrade loan account of the petitioners from N.P.A. to Standard Class as per the guidelines provided by R.B.I.’s circular. 5. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of. However, in case the petitioners do not comply this order or any part thereof, the claim of the petitioners in this writ petition shall stand rejected and the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to take all coercive action - 3 - against the petitioners for recovery of the entire amount dues as per the fresh calculation made by the authorities. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)