- (1.) Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding initiated by respondent no. 2- Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur upon an application made by respondent no. 4-UCO Bank, under section 14 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Sarfacie Act). He submitted that the Bank has not taken recourse to Section 13 (3-A).
(2.) Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, submitted that inspite of receipt of notice under section 13(2) of the Sarfacie Act, the petitioner failed and neglected to pay the dues and infact it did not even respond to the said notice within the prescribed period and therefore it cannot complain that recourse to Section 13(3-A) has not been taken. Then petitioner made a proposal for compromise belatedly on 14.6.2007 but did not pursue it. He further submitted that symbolic position of the property in question was already taken on 7.9.2007.
(3.) After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find no merit in this writ petition. Admittedly, petitioner did not respond to the notice under section 13(2) of the Sarfacie Act within the stipulated time. Then, it did not pursue the offer of compromise also, made by it. It further appears from Annexure-3-the reply of the petitioner to the notice dated 29.4.2008 sent by respondent no. 2, that petitioner did not dispute the dues, rather a prayer was made for fixing installments.;