- (1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing action of the Authorized Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank- respondent in taking over possession of the residential house belonging to the petitioner situated at E-70, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. It is alleged that without following the proper procedure laid down under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the respondent bank has proceeded to take possession illegal by ignoring the One Time Settlement dated 7.9.2010 (P. 9). When the matter came up for consideration, after issuance of notice of motion, on 17.2.2012, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, after seeking instructions from Shri Gurjit Singh Gill-petitioner no.3 has stated that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be deposited on or before 22.2.2012 and the matter was posted for hearing on 24.2.2012. It is appropriate to mention that the total outstanding amount, even as per settlement was Rs. 215 lakhs. The payment was to be made as per the following schedule: a) Down Payment of OTS Rs. 22.80 lacs (already deposited) b) Within a period of three months Rs. 115.80 lacs from the date of sanction. c) On or before 26.3.2012 Balance amount of Rs. 76.40 lacs with applicable interest as per Recovery Policy.
(2.) As the petitioner had not paid the second installment, an undertaking was recorded that a partial sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was to be deposited on or before 22.2.2012. The amount was not deposited by 22.2.2012 and on 14.3.2012 one last opportunity was granted to comply with the order dated 17.2.2012 and the amount was permitted to be deposited on or before 21.3.2012. It was, however, made clear that if the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- is not deposited by the aforesaid time then the writ petition shall be dismissed.
(3.) At the time of hearing today neither the petitioner has appeared nor there is anything on the record to show that the amount was paid and the order dated 17.2.2012 stands complied with. Mr. Pascricha, Learned Counsel for the respondent has in categorical terms stated that the amount remains to be paid and the order dated 17.2.2012 has not been complied with. The aforesaid factual back drop makes it it is abundantly clear that the petitioner lacks bona fide and is unable to make the payment. In the absence of the capacity of the petitioner to pay, the respondent- bank would be fully entitled to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;