IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7485 of 2011 Gulab Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd., through its one of the Director, namely Kalam Khan, having Power of Attorney given by Board of Director Chakmanjhan, P.O.-Belsand, P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj, registered office Gulab Cold Store Pvt. Ltd. G.T. Road, Howrah, West Bengal…………………………………………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. Deputy General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 2nd Floor of SBI, Patna, Main Branch Building West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001. 2. State Bank of India, Gopalganj Branch at P.O. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 3. Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Gopalganj Branch at and P.O. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj…………………………………...Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. U.S. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Dr. Binay Kr. Singh, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 29.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) To direct the respondents to follow the mandatory provision of clause 6 and 8 of the agreement by which the Borrower insured with the Bank against the fire, lighting, riots, strike, flood, cyclone, earth quakes, civil commotion and other natural climates etc. with the contrary approved by the Bank in the joint name of the bank and borrow at the cost of full market value or bank interest, which ever is higher in event of non compliance the bank reserved the right to take insurance cover as required by the bank by debit from account of Borrower. In present case the Borrower/Bank has failed to compliance to insured the Stock of the Potato; (ii) To hold and follow the mandatory provision of clause 8 of the agreement, - 2 - in which the term and condition has been defined about the stock of the goods. (iii) To hold the letter issued by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. dated 06.08.2009 which disclosed that the company has taken Insurance premium from the bank only from the fire risk on stock of potato sum insured of Rs.10,33,9900/- and plant machine, furniture etc. of Rs.1 crore and 65 lakhs, so from this fact it appears the Bank has insured the assets of the company and recovered the risk of behalf of the petitioner’s company, but loss cum under DOS policy which is not covered with Insurance, so from this fact it appears the respondent Bank has committed error in insured the Stock of Potato which has been damaged in crores. (iv) To direct the respondents to follow the direction of letter dated 19.03.2010 issued by Respondent no.1 by which he invite the petitioner for amicable settlements in tern of policy of the Bank, but the bank has failed to settle the matter with the petitioner firm. 3. It is not in dispute that earlier demand notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and thereafter possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act was issued by the respondent Bank against the petitioner against which the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.2737 of 2011 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 18.03.2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority under section 17 of the Act. It was also directed that if such an appeal - 3 - was filed within 15 days from that day along with a copy of that order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of the said writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this court, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in spite of notice the respondent Bank is not appearing in that appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the appeal is pending before the Registrar of the Tribunal because the petitioner has not removed the defects and has yet to be placed before the Presiding Officer. 5. In the said circumstances, petitioner is directed to remove the defects, if not yet removed, within 15 days from today. Similarly, the respondent Bank is also directed to appear, if not yet appeared, before the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal within 15 days from today. After removal of the defects and appearance of the respondent Bank, the Tribunal is directed to decide the said appeal within three months thereafter. 6. This writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance for which this writ petition has been filed, before the appellate authority by way of filing an interlocutory application therein and the said appellate - 4 - authority shall decide the same in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the interlocutory application. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)