- (1.) The petitioner was granted loan of Rupees 10,59,417/- by the respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, due to unforseen circumstances and reasons beyond his control, he could not repay the amount due in time. According to him, prior to default he had regularly deposited the amount with the Bank. Now the Bank is proceeding against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the realisation of loan amount etc.
(2.) We have heard Sri S.N. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Tiwarii and Sri Sanjay Singhi, learned counsel for the respondent- Banks and have perused the averments made in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is prepared to repay the entire outstanding dues along with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in instalments. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submitted that although the petition is not maintainable since sufficient opportunity has already been given to the borrower for clearing up the outstanding dues but the Bank has no objection if some indulgence is given by this Court regarding payment of dues in instalments as the bank is interested in realisation of its dues.
(3.) We are aware that Hon ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2010 arising out of SLP (c) No. 10145 of 2010 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, decided on 26.07.2010 has held that the High Courts should restrain themselves from staying the recovery proceedings started under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by exercising their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the High Courts stay the recovery proceedings under the aforesaid Act then the very purpose of enacting the said Act will be frustrated. It has further been held that Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act contains detailed mechanism for enforcement of security interest, in which not only the right to file objections against the notice under Section 13 (2) has been provided but at the same time an effective remedy has further been provided under Section 17 of the said Act.;