K.A.MOHANDAS Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petitioner had deposited Rs.10,00,000/- towards cash credit facility, the matter is towards the other house loan account. The petitioner having been served with the notice under Section 13(2), it not disclosed in the writ petition that the outstanding amount is Rs.59,00,000/- and the total amount is approximately Rs.1,40,00,000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards the housing loan provided the possession of the house already taken by the Bank is restored. I am afraid, the aforementioned bargaining under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be undertaken unless and until the petitioner shows the bonafide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire outstanding liability towards both the loan accounts would be paid in ten instalments. This Court had given the proposal of 5 instalments with the discretion of this Court, but the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client did not agree. In such circumstances, this Court cannot warrant interference in such matters, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has a remedy to file Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.