- (1.) When this matter was initially taken up in the morning hours, the petitioner wanted to show its bona fide to deposit the amount before this Court or before the respondent-Bank and, therefore, the matter was kept after some time.
(2.) Again, when the matter is heard during the course of the day, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to show its bona fide that the extension application, which has been preferred by the petitioner, has been brushed aside without appreciating the first compromise dated 25th August, 2007 (Annexure-6 to the memo of petition).
(3.) Meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents has taken instructions from the high ranking officer from Patna and what he has submitted is that the respondent-Bank has initiated action under Section 13 of The Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 2002) and after giving notice under Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002, further action under Sub-Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 has also been completed and, thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and the application, preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed against which, an appeal has been preferred before the Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata.;