^•^ ^••"^y.-l-'' ^ss^^ .•-y'.,c^'"^ ..•-"'\ fSf^iQ 9@®cN ^••y''..>•[\e/v •lv'\-<AC"" ...•"/, ^ •<^v; -.•'' ,,e°p:' ...-•-" ^ •»»>- c- ^- • ( O C? Z^ lllll^ ^SvSj, •nqi^ld^ B^ft^PTS', Rdl'd^ CE?.'T.) W.P. (C) N0?'^ ^ /2011 (S.B.l f^^ ^TK 'qiiT^T, ftcTT SW^PT !RTT?, STTg ^TTifT 40 ^, Plcll^-in^ y^Rui'i ^s^, ^nf^ ^pf^uT '^ ^Tsuft vrS\, fsidi^^, f^rT-f^prRiy ??OTTO ............. •yiR|ct>|cbdI R'to^i TTG|?Tcf5, fc^ 3TFI? '?TR^T-f^cTRTy, ^t.Tft. f^TT <*ldul c^ rTNT fsl^l'i-1^, f^fT-fiRTT?^ WITO yai'<qi<?l OT^?T/^e' ^iRicbi srariftT ai^c; 226/227 ^TRcN "CTf^TFT I r; :;:-... HIOH COTJRT OF CHHATTTSGARH AT BH.ASP1JR WMT PETmON (C) No. 5778 of20H PETmONER : VirendraKumarMarbal. RE8PONDENTS VF.R8IJS Manaeer, Union Bank oflndia. WMT PETITION LINDE.R ARTICLE 226m7 OF THE CONSTTamON OF INDIA SB: Hon'We Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Preseirt: Shri Rajendra PateL Advocate for the petitioner. ORDKR (Passed on 27th day of September, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direetion to suspend/stay/qua.sh the notice dated 30.08.2011 (AnneMire P/l) issued bv fhe respondetrt under section 13(4) ofthe Seciiritissrtion and B_econstroction of Fmancial Assets and Enforeement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Acf). Further, a direction to the respondent bank to give faeility ofreoavmeHt of loan amount in insteilhnents. L^amed counsel appearing for the petitionw submits that the petitioner ottained a loan amount of B-s. 6,82,000/- for constnietion of house. However, due to deterica'ation of his financial condition, the petitoiner could not repav the loan amount. The petitianer intends to repay the loan amoimt alonewith mterest, however, the respondent bank ha.s issiied notice under seetion 13(4) ofthe Act for sale ofthe property ofthe petitioner. Shri Patd fiirther submits that eariier, the petitioner had filed a vwit petition being W.P.(C) No. 989/2011, which was disposed ofvide order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexiire P/2) wherein. this Court dispose of the petition with libertv to the pefitioner to make a representation to the respondent-Bank for making offer to pay •i%-^ 5. substantial amount by first mstalhnent. Piireuant to the said order, the pe'titioner made a rep-esentation on 15.03.2011 (Aanexin-e P/3) praying for graatmg him facility to re-pay tfae loan in irBtallments. The respondent-Baak, in response, asked fhe petitionerto deposrt a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- within a period of seven days, tfaen only the respondent would consider tfae case of the petitioner, else, appropriate action would be taken imder the provisions ofthe Ast. The petitioner made a represeiitation on 14.06.2011 (Aimexiwe P/5) statiagthat the petitioiier was willing to deposit a sum ofRs. 25,000/- immediately and in fiitiire, he would deposit rtie installments regulariy. Qn penisal of fhe documents filed by fhe petitioner, it is evident that the respondent-Bank had given fhe petitioner an oppc»rtumtyto re-pay the loan amount on the condition that fhe pefitioner was required to dq»osit a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- wliich the petitioner coul not deposit. It v/as also stated Ifaat ifthe petitioner could not deposit the said amount, appropriate steps imder tfae provisions of the Act, would be taken. At this stags, when the wtmn imder section 13 (4) oftheAct has been taken by the respondent Bank, remedy availabk to the Detitioners is to take recoiwse to tfae provisions ofSection 17 ofthe Acfc 2002. The ideirtical dispiite came up before this Court and after hearing the parties, tfae same has been decided vide order dated 22.06.2011 in Ind S^'nergy Limited & Another v. The Aitthonssd Officer & Others^. W.P.(C)No. 2960/2011. 6. In view ofthe fact that erder imder Section 13(4) ofthe Act, 2002 has been piwsed, the issue asto illegality in the aiidelinw canot be considered in the instant petition, leaving the question of law to be decided m aa appropriate case. 7. In Jnrf Swaergy (swpra), this court after relviae on the decision of the Supreme Coiut in Kanaiyal.al Labhand Sachdev and Ofhers v. Slate ofMaharashtra ar,d Others^, observed as under: "9. Ia view ofthe wdl settled principle oflaw tfaat the efBcacious statutory remedy ofappeal under the provisions of Section 17 oflfae Act, 2002 is available tp the petitioners aud, as such, no interferenee is warraHted bv this Court in exereise of its power under Arliule 226/227 offhe C^nstitirtion oflndia." 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applyiag the wel! settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present case, it is not necessary to eo into the merits of the case and the petition is dismissed, as not mamtainable in terms oflnd Synergy (supra). No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut (201;i)2SCC782