THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 7065 of 2010 29-03-2010 BETWEEN; M/s Mittapalli Narayana & Co rep. by its Managing Partner ...Petitioner vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., rep. by its officer, ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.7065 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The petitioner-M/s Mittapalli Narayana and Company admittedl availed a loan of Rs.1,58,64,313/- from the respondent-HDFC Ban (secured creditor) and mortgaged immovable property, buildings an machinery of a rice mill thereon, as a security for the loan obtained on 17 08-2007 and defaulted in repayment of the instalments. Consequently, th secured creditor issued a demand notice dated 08-01-2010 under Sectio 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the 2002 Act”). I response, the petitioner represented for grant of time to repay the amoun On 11-03-2010 the secured creditor rejected the application/representatio of the petitioner for extension of time and the petitioner now apprehend that the bank would proceed under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act fo attachment of the secured assets and would take further steps fo realisation of the debt due by sale of the secured asset. The writ petition i therefore filed challenging the notice issued by the secured creditor unde Section 13(2) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances stated above, no case is made out fo interference by this Court. Grant of extension of time for repayment of th loan is not within the province of this Court under Article 226 of th Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to make out any case fo interference. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 29th MARCH 2010. TSNR