UPENDRA KUMAR PATNAIK Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA (RACPC), AT/P.O.-CAPITAL POLICE STATION, BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri D.K. Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank.

(2.) The Petitioner in this writ application assails the notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act in Annexure-11 demanding payment of Rs. 48,37,830.00 and further interest and expenses thereon.

(3.) The Petitioner is a former employee of the State Bank of India. He had taken a loan under a Scheme floated by the Bank meant for senior citizens. In terms of the Scheme, he was sanctioned a lump sum amount of Rs. 19,52,000.00 under Annexure-1. Under the Scheme if the Petitioner during his life time does not pay back the aforesaid amount or his legal heirs after his death fail to pay back the amount, the property mortgaged could be sold and the entire loan amount with interest could be recovered. Therefore, the sanctioned amount was Rs. 49,50,000.00 being 90% of the value of the property mortgaged and the Petitioner was granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 19,52,000.00 for a period of 10 years. The case of the Bank is that the Petitioner who was required to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 19,52,000.00 by use of Debit Card had overdrawn Rs. 27.07 lakhs from the account over and above the sanctioned lump sum amount of Rs. 19,52,000.00. According to the Bank fraud was committed by the Petitioner in connivance with one of the officers of the Bank and the said amount of Rs. 27.07. lakhs had been overdrawn. When the matter came to the notice of the Bank, the Petitioner was informed to pay back the amount and he having not paid, notice under Section 13(2) and thereafter under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act had been issued to the Petitioner. From Annexure-10, the representation submitted by the Petitioner, we find that the Petitioner admits overdrawal of Rs. 27.07 lakhs and was also willing to pay back the said amount with interest. In the meantime the Petitioner has already deposited Rs. 7 lakhs with the Bank. Out of Rs. 7 lakhs, he had deposited Rs. 2.25 lakhs as it appears from the representation in Annexure-10 and the balance ha been deposited by virtue of the order of this Court dated 22.4.2010. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that given two years time the Petitioner shall be in a position to pay back the entire overdrawn amount with interest. Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank in consultation with the officers of the Bank present in Court does not object to the period asked for by the Petitioner but agrees to the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the overdrawn amount as it stands today can be paid in instalments.