IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15759 of 2008 Raj Pandey son of Sri Satendra Prasad Pandey, resident of Uma Charan Bose Lane, Kharman Chak, PS - Adampur, Dist - Bhagalpur - Petitioner Versus 1 The Indian Bank through its Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, namely, Nikhil Kumar Sarkar, Circle Office, Govind Bhawan, New Dak Bungalow Road, Patna 2 Shri Nikhil Kumar Sarkar, Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Govind Bhawan, New Dak Bungalow Road, Patna 3 The Manager, Indian Bank, Ratan Complex Branch, 4-Patal Babu Road, Bhagalpur - Respondents ----------- 2 16.12.2008 Petitioner had an OCC account with the respondent-Indian Bank, Bhagalpur. For some reasons, the petitioner failed to service his debt, thus, rendering his account NPA. Bank, having issued notice in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is now proposing to proceed for action in terms of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act which has brought the petitioner before this Court. Petitioner asserts that the agreed rate of interest, which the petitioner was to pay for the OCC facility, was at the rate of 12% but it realized that the Bank has unauthorisedly been charging interest at the rate of 16%. Thus, the only dispute that the petitioner is able to raise before this Court is the rate of interest but so far as capital withdrawal is concerned, there is no dispute. Thus seen, on petitioner’s own showing, petitioner is liable to repay the entire debt with interest at least at the rate of 12%. A copy of the writ petition has been served on the Indian Bank, Circle Office, Govind Bhawan, New Dak Bungalow Road, Patna 2 but there has been no appearance on behalf of Indian Bank. In my view, there is no point keeping the writ petition pending before this Court. Petitioner admits having overdrawn from the account aforesaid being Account No 548693387 (old Account No 1031) with Indian Bank, Ratan Complex Branch, 4-Patal Babu Road, Bhagalpur. Thus, he admits liability to liquidate the amount overdrawn. I, therefore, direct that on petitioner’s depositing Rs 2 lacs by 31st of December 2008, Bank would not proceed further in the matter under SARFAESI Act. The Bank must then respond to petitioner’s protest with regard to rate of interest. Such a response by the Bank would be made by 15th of January, 2009. The petitioner would then be liable to liquidate the dues alongwith interest at 12%, which he himself admits in full, by 31st of March 2009. So far as the disputed interest is concerned, the petitioner would take a stand in the matter before the Bank authorities as certain accounts statement, as annexed by the petitioner, show rate of interest at 12% but recent statements show rate of interest at 16%. The petitioner would get the matter resolved with regard to rate of interest within the month of January, 2009. If it is finally determined by the Bank that the rate of interest was rightly charged at 16%, petitioner would have his remedies so far as the rate is concerned but that would not prevent the petitioner from liquidating the dues with interest at least at 12%. The petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy of this order while making the initial payment of Rs 2 lacs, as directed above, to the respondent-Bank before which the accounts are maintained. 3 Till 31st of March 2009, Bank would not proceed with any further coercive steps against the petitioner and would drop all further steps in case the petitioner liquidates the entire liability as indicated above by that date. This disposes of the writ petition itself. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)