Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) MR . V.S. Yadav has put in appearance on behalf of both the respondents. Service is complete. It is second round of litigation by the petitioner -principal borrower who took cash credit facility of Rs. 24.75 Lakhs on 16.05.2005 and earlier when he became defaulter and his account became NPA notice U/s 13(2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act, 2002") came to be served way back on 28.11.2006. However, the matter could be settled before Debts Recovery Tribunal and the petitioner was permitted to avail facilities.
(2.) AS it reveals from the record that his account again became NPA and notice U/s 13(2) of the Act, 2002 came to be served and after affording opportunity to submit objections as provided U/s 13(3A) the respondent -bank initiated further proceedings U/s 13(4) of the Act, 2002 vide communication dt. 17.05.2012 and at that stage the petitioner approached to this Court by filing CWP -8988/2012 which came to be decided vide order dt. 19.07.2012 with direction to the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking settlement of his NPA account under one time settlement scheme by submitting representation ventilating his grievance and the bank was also directed to decide such representation if made obviously in accordance with law within the stipulated period granted therein. The petitioner pursuant thereto submitted representation obviously to get his NPA account settled under one time settlement scheme and there was pre -condition to participate in OTS scheme introduced by the respondent -bank to deposit 5% of the outstanding as on the date of NPA and communication was sent to the petitioner on 04.08.2012 followed with 17.08.2012 (Annx. 13 & 15) respectively but the petitioner failed to deposit 5% of the outstanding as on the date of NPA and after the proceedings were initiated to put the property to auction over which security interest was created, the petitioner again approached to this Court by filing instant petition with the grievance that despite there being order of the Court & willing of the petitioner still his NPA account has not been settled.
(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner has emphasis to submit that there are apparent discrepancies in the statement of account and even the amount which the petitioner paid after his account became NPA has also not been credited to his account and under these circumstances when he always remained willing to settle his account still his property which is mortgaged with the respondent -bank if put to auction his rights will be seriously jeopardized.;