THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 9657 of 2010 Dated: 27-4-2010 Between: Mohd. Amjadullah …Petitioner and Federal Bank Limited, rep. by its Chief Manager, Orient Estate, Abid Road, Hyderabad …Respondent ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The possession notice issued by the respondent-Bank, a secured creditor under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitisation Act’), is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner availed a housing loan; for purchase of a house, for furnishing the house and Cash Credit/OD in the name of Indian Optical Center from the secured creditor in 2006 and admittedly defaulted in payment of four equated monthly instalments of Rs.77,000/- each. The secured creditor, classified the loan account as NPA; initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act; and issued a notice dated 10-9-2009 calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 33,69,771/ with interest as specified thereon; Rs.4,43623-75 with interest specified thereon and Rs.12,59,155-95 with specified interest thereon as due as on 26-8-2009, 17-8-2009 and 31-8-2009 respectively, within sixty days from the date of the notice, failing which further proceedings under the Securitisation Act would be initiated. The petitioner pleads to have deposited Rs.2.00 lakhs on 1- 10-2009 towards the amounts due, but did not address any objection to the initiation of proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act. The secured creditor issued the impugned notice, in purported exercise of the power under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act, which is the gravamen of the grievance in this writ petition. The petitioner does not assert any legal basis for the challenge to the 13 (4) order issued by the respondent-Bank but seeks the indulgence of this Court to direct the respondent to restructure the instalments and grant the petitioner further time for repayment of the amounts due. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that such a direction should be issued in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not commend acceptance by this Court. It is axiomatic that equity follows the law. The provisions of the Securitisation Act once validly initiated are non-derogable and cannot be interdicted except on proof of violation of provisions of the Act. No such transgression of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, either in its substantive prescriptions or even pocedural prescriptions is either pleaded, urged or established. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition requires to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 27th April, 2010. GRR