C NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned Order in unnumbered O.A. (Sr No.253/08) dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, the sixth respondent herein as wholly unsustainable in law.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- THE petitioner was granted a loan by the respondents bank in the year 1995 to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs and he was paying the instalments regularly till 1999 and thereafter, due to his inability to pay the instalment amount, the firm was declared as NPA on 27.02.2003 by the first respondent bank. THEreafter, on 27.02.2003, the bank offered a one time settlement fixing the total outstanding as Rs.5.84 crores which the petitioner accepted, but he could not pay the amount within the time. One year thereafter, the bank again offered second OTS on 12.03.2004 and this time, the amount was fixed at Rs.5.87 lakhs. Though the petitioner agreed to the offer made by the bank, he prayed for time to mobilize the amount. THE petitioner also disputed the quantum at Rs.5.87 lakhs. As the petitioner has not paid the amount, the bank issued a notice dated 21.11.2005 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.8.79 lakhs with interest thereon.

(3.) THE first respondent has filed a detailed counter accepting the details in respect of the sanctioning of the loan, offering of OTS Scheme on more than two occasion in favour of the petitioner. But the first respondent would contend that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was validly issued on 21.11.2005 in view of the inordinate delay in payment and refusal on the part of the petitioner to accept the OTS offer and his failure to adhere to the repayment schedule as per the OTS Scheme. THE petitioner has not evinced any interest in settling the matter or making the payment. THErefore, on 03.07.2006, the OTS offered to the petitioner was withdrawn but the allegation that it was withdrawn due to a malafide action of the third respondent in seeking bribe was specifically denied. THE third respondent has also filed a separate affidavit contending that no such demand was ever made by him and he intend to take criminal action or defamatory proceedings against the petitioner.