IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.980 of 2008 ***** 1. M/S Sumer Dairy & Food Products, A Partnership from having its office and factory at Sobh (Suliebatta) P.O.- Bhadya, Barachatti, Gaya Through Partner, Bijay Narain Singh. 2. Bijay Narain Singh, S/o Late Awadh Bihari Singh, Partner of M/s Sumer Dairy & Food Products, Partnership form of Sobh, P.O.- Bhadya, Barachatti, Distt.- Gaya. …. Appellants/ Petitioners Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, A body cororate constituted under the banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertaking) Act having its head office at Delhi and Branch Office of Barachatti, Distt.- Gaya and Regional Office at Gaya, A.P. Colony, Gaya through Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Barachatti, Gaya, Distt.-Gaya. 2. Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Barachatti, Gaya. Respondents/ Respondents 3. Maheshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Shyam Narayan Singh, Partner of M/S Sumer Dairy & Food Products at Sobh (Suliebatta) P.O.- Bhadya, P.S. Barachatti, District- Gaya Petitioner No.2 Proferma respondent. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr.Niranjan Kumar , Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 15th December, 2008. The Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of 209 days and for condonation thereof, an application (I.A. No.7383 of 2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay, we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of merit and does not deserve to be admitted. - 2 - 2. That the first appellant is borrower from the respondent no.1 Bank is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, huge liability towards loan remains unpaid by the first appellant. Initially notice for payment of outstanding amount of about Rs.91 lacs was issued to it for repayment under Section 13(2) of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 20th November, 2007. Then further notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 came to be issued as amount due to the Bank remained unpaid. Although partial payment has been made thereafter but still substantial amount remained unpaid. Before the Single Judge, a statement was made on behalf of the Bank that their whole desire is to secure its outstanding amount; they were not interested in disposal of the assets. In this view of the matter, an undertaking was given by the present appellants (petitioners therein) that within six months i.e. by 15th October, 2008, the entire outstanding amount with accrued interest will be liquidated. The undertaking was accepted by the Single Judge and the time prayed for was granted. However, it was made clear that in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability, the Bank would be free to proceed with the impugned notices. We are afraid, the order of the Single Judge dated 16th April, 2008, which is based on unambiguous, specific and categorical undertaking given by the petitioners therein (appellants herein) does not call for any interference. Incidentally, we may notice that an application was made by the appellant before the Single Judge - 3 - for extension of time for liquidating the outstanding dues. The Single Judge, yet granted indulgence to the petitioners by extending time upto 15th December, 2008 making it clear that no further extension on any ground will be granted. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any substance. It is dismissed in limine. 4. This disposes of I.A. No. 7383 of 2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-