SUJIT KUMAR ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of M. A. T. 1364 of 2007 and the Reference made in W. P. 5472 (W) 2007. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This matter has been adjourned on a number of occasions at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted before us that the appellant is in the process of settling the matter with the Bank. He had actually submitted a number of offers which had not been accepted by the Bank. He was, therefore, trying to increase the offer which may be acceptable to the bank.

(2.) ON the last occasion when the matter appeared, it was specifically submitted by the learned counsel that time may be granted till Monday so that one more effort could be made to persuade the bank to accept the amount offered by the appellant in full and final settlement of the account. Learned counsel for the Bank is, however, adamant that at no stage the Bank had expressed its willingness to accept any of the offers made by the appellant.

(3.) WE may now proceed to decide the appeal. The appellant has filed the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Bank dated 9. 9. 2006 on the ground that it had been issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act.