ALPANA SHANKAR Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was sanctioned a housing loan by respondent no. 1 -Union Bank of India in the year 1999 and the amount was disbursed to her. She could not repay the loan amount in terms of the agreement. According to the petitioner, the loan amount could not be repaid in terms of the agreement due to failure of business and due to some family problems. The respondents issued to the petitioner a notice dated 09-10-2003 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 directing her to pay a sum of Rs. 15,73,644. 00/- together with interest from 01-08-2003 with monthly interests as per the terms and conditions of the loan document executed by her and to discharge her liabilities in full within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the Bank would be constrained to enforce the securities created by her in favour of the Bank by exercising the rights given under the said Act. However, the petitioner did not discharge her liabilities in full within sixty days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Though the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. . 3,00,000/- on 19-03-2004, the respondents through annexure 2 letter dated 01-05-2004 informed the petitioner that unless and until she deposited the full amount as required in the notice dated 09-10-2003, the Bank will be constrained to enforce the securities created by her. It was also stated in the letter dated 01-05-2004 that the petitioner's request for waiving the interest and granting six month's time to discharge the liabilities and for releasing one of the properties mortgaged with the bank cannot be considered. It was further stated in Annexure 2 letter that if the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount within seven days (latest by 08-05-2004), the Bank will be at liberty to initiate legal action for recovery as per rights available to the Bank. Thereafter, in December, 2004, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount of the respondents in six quarterly instalments. It was also prayed that the respondents be directed not to take possession of the mortgaged properties or to sell them in auction.

(2.) WHEN this case came up for consideration on 24-12-2004, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent the court directed the petitioner to pay the amount in six instalments and the respondent was directed to fix the amount of instalments. The Court also directed to post the case for admission in the month of April 2005. When this case came up for further consideration on 13-04-2005, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner it was adjourned to 27-04-2005. On 27-04-2005, learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to state whether the Bank had fixed the amount of instalments and whether the petitioner had paid any instalment. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in compliance of the Court's order dated 24-12-2004, instalments were fixed by the Bank, but the petitioner did not pay even a single instalment. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to verify the position. Hence, the case was adjourned.

(3.) TODAY, neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the counsel for the respondents is in a position to make a clear statement as to whether the petitioner paid the amount of instalments fixed by the Bank. Hence, we proceed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition on merits.