AJAY SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to accept the proposal of the petitioner for settlement of cash credit loan account of M/s. Lily Labs, Gaya (respondent No.4) in terms of the SBI OTS SME, 2010 Scheme (OTS Scheme, 2010), which is lying pending with the authorities of respondent-State Bank of India, Gaya since long without any response and also for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to liquidate the dues of respondent No.4 in terms of the aforesaid OTS Scheme, which is applicable in this case and also for restraining the authorities of respondent-Bank from taking any coercive action for recovery of outstanding dues relating to the cash credit loan account of respondent No.4 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) as the petitioner's case was fully covered by the above named OTS Scheme.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that M/s. Lily Labs, Gaya (respondent No. 4) is a firm engaged in trade and mars' keting of medicine and drugs run by Smt. Kusum Devi (wife of the petitioner). The petitioner is the guarantor in the cash credit loan account availed by respondent No. 4, by which financial assistance was granted by respondent Bank in the year 2006.

(3.) It was claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 carried on its aforesaid business operations in sound state and maintained its account with respondent-Bank in proper order, but after October, 2008 respondent No.4 fell into some unavoidable difficult situation, due to which it was unable to maintain the orderly status of the cash credit loan account with respondent-Bank. Due to the said reason, respondent-Bank issued legal notice to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.4 through its Advocate on 26-2-2009, which, was replied by respondent No. 4. But since payment was not made, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued by the Bank demanding the petitioner and respondent No.4 payment of arrears of the cash credit loan account and when the said payment was not made, a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 1-11-2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the aforesaid steps in the proceeding under* the Act were taken by the Bank despite the petitioner being in regular dealing with the respondents in connection with settlement of the cash credit loan account of respondent No.4, subject to settlement of certain issues regarding calculation of interest, charges and credit etc.