PURUSHOTHAM M ANAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER; VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Assailing the order of the first respondent dated 17 March 2016 made in S.A.No.63 of 2016, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition.

(3.) The brief facts are that the petitioner availed loan to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by mortgaging the property and as per the sanction letter dated 15 November 2012, the petitioner has to repay the loan in 36 equal monthly instalments and thereafter, he can convert the same as V-rent loan. The petitioner was also given one year holiday period for repayment of the loan. Pursuant to the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent sanctioned additional loan to the tune of Rs.1,35,00,000/-. Despite the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent issued reminders and in the reminder letter dated 07 May 2015, the overdue amount was stated as Rs.79,79,517/-. Further, the second respondent issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter, the second respondent issued a possession notice dated 02 January 2016 under Rule 8(1) of the Act, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17(1) of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Chennai (for short 'the Tribunal') in S.A.No.63/2016.