L. JOHN Vs. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition was filed challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. It is seen that the petitioner is a defaulter to the Bank and that when proceedings were initiated, he approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing SA No. 63/07. That SA was dismissed by Ext.P5 order. However, the petitioner was allowed to discharge the liability in instalments. That order was not complied with. In such circumstances, Bank continued the proceedings and finally Ext.P8 notice proposing the sale of the mortgaged property was published, scheduling the sale on 5/10/10. It was at that stage this writ petition was filed and the main prayer in the writ petition is to grant the petitioner atleast one month time to repay the loan amount. Petitioner also sought consideration of his case for a one time settlement. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that it was on account of the non compliance of Ext.P5 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the Bank had to continue the recovery proceedings. It is also stated that despite the request of the petitioner for one month time as contained in the first prayer, by virtue of the interim order dated 24/9/10, petitioner is enjoying more than two years time and that no payment is forthcoming.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , petitioner is a defaulter. Ext.P5 final order passed by the Tribunal which allowed the petitioner an instalment facility was also not complied with. In such circumstances, Bank was entitled to proceed against the mortgaged assets and it was in pursuance to that right of the Bank that Ext.P8 notice of sale was published. There is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P8 justifying interference in a writ petition much less in a case of this nature where the petitioner has not complied with the order of the Tribunal.