- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent no.1 and Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the Bank-respondents no. 2 and 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 19.9.2012 issued by the Bank in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the Act) and also notice dated 27.11.2012 for taking possession of the mortgaged assets.
(2.) PETITIONER ' case in the writ petition is that he had taken a housing loan of Rs. 21,50,000/ in the year 2006. On default being committed, the Bank has initiated proceedings under the said Act by issuing demand notice dated 19.9.2012 asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.22,87,600/plus interest as on 1.9.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner accepts the entire liability and is ready to deposit the entire amount along with up to date interest if some reasonable time is given to make the entire payment. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the Bank is interested in realizing its outstanding amount against the petitioner and in case the petitioner makes the payment within the time granted by the Court, the Bank may not proceed against the petitioner. However, liberty be given to the Bank to proceed further against the petitioner under the Act, 2002 in event any default is committed by the petitioner.
(3.) THE Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & Ors, 2010 (8) SCC 110 has held that the High Court shall not ordinarily entertain the writ proceedings arising out of the Act, 2002 and the aggrieved parties shall be relegated to avail the remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. There cannot be any dispute to the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. However, in the present case the petitioner accepts the liability and does not challenge the action of the Bank on merits and has come in the writ petition with a limited prayer to grant sometime to deposit the entire amount. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in giving one opportunity to the petitioner to clear of the entire outstanding amount.;