THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 28862 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Questioning the action of the respondent bank in trying to recover possession of the subject property belonging to her, without issuing/ serving any notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 22.11.2010, granted interim stay of dispossession, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of order, and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks thereafter. Seeking to vacate the aforesaid interim order of stay, the respondent bank filed vacate stay petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent bank along with the vacate stay petition, it is stated that the petitioner, having obtained loan from the bank, failed to repay the same, and as such proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated for recovery of the loan amount. That the notice dated 02.02.2010 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, was received by the petitioner on 27.02.2010, as is evident from the acknowledgment filed along with the counter, and possession notice dated 10.11.2010 was personally served on her, and as such the contention of petitioner that no notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act was issued, is not correct. It is further stated that the petitioner, having paid the amounts as stipulated in the interim order, failed to discharge the balance loan amount, and in view of the interim order of stay, the bank is not able to proceed further for recovery of the dues. That being the stand taken by the respondent, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 27.09.2011, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to settle the account, and sought time. In view of the said submission, the matter was directed to be listed after Dasara Vacation, 2011. Thereafter, when the matter was called on 11.10.2011, the counsel for the petitioner sought further time to enable the petitioner clear off the dues and settle the account, and accordingly this Court granted four weeks time. In spite of granting further time even thereafter, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner did not clear off the dues and settle the account. Hence, we are not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 16th November 2011 IBL