KAMALAKANTA DAS Vs. A.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Kar, learned Counsel for opposite parties-Bank.

(2.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 202017 under Sec. 13 (2) and the notice dated 21.07.2017 under Sec. 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 issued by the Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank-opposite party No.1 directing the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 79,82,623.63 plus interest and the auction sale notice was issued on 18.09.2017 pursuant to the notice under Sec. 13 (4) of the Act.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner having failed to repay the loan amount, the opposite parties-Bank have issued the possession notice and have taken possession of the mortgaged property in question on 21.7.2017. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the petitioner-loanee is a chronic defaulter and he is not ready and willing to deposit the outstanding dues after notices were issued under Sec. 13 (2), 13 (4) and for auction of the secured property.