- (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the issuance of a direction to the respondents directing them not to send goondas / musclemen in order to recover any balance amount if due or to take possession of House no. 276, Urban Estate, Batala and to hand over the title deed and issue him "no Due certificate" of the aforesaid mortgaged property as the petitioner has paid the entire loan amount of Rs. 11,03,000 / - as per the settlement offer dated 31. 12. 2005 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
(2.) AS per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner-firm took credit facility from the respondents. However, he had failed to re-pay the amount. Thus a demand notice under section 13 (2) of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the "sarfaesi Act 2002")was issued on 14. 5. 2003 by the respondents. Thereafter, another notice dated 13. 10. 2004 was issued for taking the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property bearing House No. 276, Urban Estates, batala and thereafter, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 31. 12. 2005, wherein it was settled that the application was to be submitted before 31. 3. 2006 and as per this settlement offer (Annexure P-2), the total settlement amount which was offered by the bank was Rs. l1,03,000/ -. It was agreed that 25 % of the amount of settlement will be paid at the first instance and the balance amount of 75 % will be paid in instalments spreading over a period of one year along with interest at bank PLR. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted his application accepting offer of the bank well before 31. 3. 2006. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6 lacs on 29. 9. 2006 and thereafter, deposited a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 22. 6. 2007 vide receipts (Annexure P-5)and the balance outstanding amount of rs. 53. 000/- was finally deposited on 25. 6. 2007. Thus, in this way, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount of settlement before the due date i. e. , 30. 6. 2007 as per the settlement (Annexure P-2), and therefore, he was entitled to the return of title deeds and "no Due Certificate" in respect of the property mortgaged. However, instead of handing over the title deeds of the mortgaged property to the petitioner, the respondents had sent goondas on 22. 6. 2007 in the morning to the house of the petitioner who threatened the petitioner with forcible eviction. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) THE writ petition has been contested by the respondent-Bank by filing written statement stating therein that the compromise was reached between the parties before the Lok Adalat at Debt recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh on 2. 8. 2003 for a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and as per this settlement, the petitioner was to pay 25 % of the compromised amount i. e. , Rs. 4. 50 lacs within 30 days up to 31. 8. 2003 and the remaining amount along with interest at prime lending rate @ 10. 5 % up to 2. 8. 2004. However, the petitioner failed to honour the said compromise/settlement reached before the Lok adalat, as a result thereof, the said compromise stood defeated and the entire bank dues became payable by him as per the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Annexure R-2/3 ). Thereafter, a notice under RBI, ots (SME) was sent to the petitioner on 31. 12. 2005. However, subsequently on receiving clarification, the respondent-branch revoked its notice vide letter dated 21. 3. 2006 vide which the RBI, OTS (SME) cancellation was advised. The petitioner was also informed that in pursuance of Annexure P-2, no compromise/settlement in his case has been approved. It is further the case of the respondent-Bank with reference to his letter dated 9. 7. 2007 that the petitioner was apprised of the factual position again vide letter dated 25. 7. 2007 (Annexure R-2/5) and he was also informed that the money deposited by him has been appropriated in his account. Since he has failed to re-pay the dues of the bank in normal course, therefore, the bank has engaged enforcement agent for recovery of bank dues as per law. Through this letter, it was also informed to the petitioner by the bank that as on date, an amount of Rs. 14. 30 lacs is due against him. Thus on the basis of these averments, it was prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed having no merit. A preliminary objection regarding the availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act was also pleaded and it was prayed that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed on the preliminary ground that the petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act.;