BOLIN CHANDRA DEURI Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner No. 2 is a licensee of retail vend of foreign liquor, the business whereof was being run in the name and style of M/s. Eureka Wine shop. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Government employee presently serving as Assistant Accounts Officer with the Assam Tribal Development Authority under the Department of Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes, Govt. of Assam.

(2.) The Petitioner No. 2 applied to the Respondent-bank seeking sanction of cash credit accommodation and housing loan. In course of time, the cash credit facility and the housing loan were obtained by the Petitioner No. 2. While the loan was applied for, the Petitioner No. 1, being the husband of the Petitioner No. 2, stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by Petitioner No. 2. As the Petitioners, admittedly, defaulted in maintaining the cash credit limit and also in payment of the housing loan, the Respondent-bank issued, on 7-1-2006, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short, 'the Act of 2002'), calling upon the Petitioners to discharge, in full, their dues of a sum of Rs. 6,81,188A together with interest within 60 days from the date of the notice making it clear that in the event of failure of the Petitioners to discharge, in full, the Petitioners' liabilities, the Respondent-bank would, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2002, take necessary action for enforcing the security interest by taking possession of, and selling, the secured assets for realizing the dues of the Respondent-bank.

(3.) Though the Petitioners claim to have made some payments towards their debts, they did not, admittedly, discharge, in full, their liabilities. Long after expiry of a period of 60 day, as stipulated in the notice, dated 7-1-2006, aforementioned, the Respondent-bank issued another notice, on 8-8-2006, informing the Petitioners that since they had failed to discharge, in full, their liabilities, the Respondent-bank had been left with no option, but to take action by taking possession of, and selling, the secured assets in order to realize the bank's dues in accordance with the Act of 2002. By the said notice, dated 8-8-2006, the Respondent-bank called upon the Petitioners to hand over or surrender the possession of the secured assets to the officials and representatives of the bank on 1-9-2006 at 11.30 a.m.