SAINULABDEEN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner.

(2.) INSOFAR as W.P.(C)No.14603/2012 is concerned, the petitioner availed of a housing loan of Rs.65,00,000.00 from the respondent. Insofar as W.P.(C)No.12833/2012 is concerned, the loan availed of the petitioner from the respondent is Rs.81,00,000.00, which again is a housing loan. On the allegation that default was committed, notices under Section 13(2) of the Act were issued and petitioner filed these writ petitions mainly complaining that the bank did not consider his request for the one time settlement of the liability.

(3.) PETITIONER has a serious dispute about the quantification of the liability and also the alleged denial of the one time settlement requested by him. These claims are disputed by the bank. In such circumstances, the disputed question raised in these writ petitions are matters which are incapable of resolution in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in my view the remedy available to the petitioner is to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appropriate application. With that liberty I dispose of these writ petitions. It is directed that in order to enable the petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtain appropriate interlocutory orders, the order passed by this Court directing the bank not to appropriate Rs.20,00,000.00 each deposited by the petitioner shall remain in force for another two months.