KANTI DEVI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had an overdraft Account No. 51212 with Bank of Baroda, Barhuli Branch in the district of Kaimur. She was indebted to the tune of Rs. 7,27,080/ - as on 29.9.2007 whereafter the debt became NPA. The Bank, thereafter, issued a notice in terms of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). The petitioner responded by admitting liability and agreeing to liquidate the same but wanted an accommodation of payment in installments totalling to about thirty six months with overdue interest. The said representation having been filed in terms of Section 13(3A), the Bank rejected the same as per Annexure -B to the counter affidavit dated 8.1.2008 and directed the petitioner to immediately liquidate the entire dues. This is what is under challenge now. The ground for rejecting the same is that petitioner and her guarantors have sufficient means to settle the loan with interest, the Bank dues are public money and lastly ample opportunity had been granted to liquidate the dues which was not done.

(2.) IN my view, this is no consideration as a matter of law. Petitioner did not dispute her liability nor sought a waiver thereof. Saying that it was public money and could not be left as a non -performing asset is factually and legally wrong. Once petitioner admits her liability and shows her willingness to liquidate the same, there is no question of public money being wasted or letting it continue as non -performing asset. A non -performing asset is an asset which is not serviced by the debtor. The moment petitioner starts repaying even in installments, debt servicing being done, it seizes to be a non -performing asset. Then is the question of Bank 'sperception that the petitioner and the guarantors had sufficient means and regular income to pay the amount, does not disclose as to whether the income is sufficient to liquidate the entire amount in one go. Coming to the last ground that enough opportunity had been given that, in my opinion, begs the question itself. Had the petitioner liquidated the dues when it was due, the question of invoking Section 13(2) would not have arisen. This is putting the cart before the horse. Petitioner 'sonly request is suitable installments and she has agreed to pay accrued interest as well for delayed payments. Her offer, in my view, was reasonable though the period given by her was long and prima facie that is what evoked the response of the Bank. I, accordingly, direct that the petitioner should deposit Rs. 2,00,000/ - within six weeks from today as upfront. Thereafter, the petitioner will deposit Rs. 50,000/ - starting from 1st week of May 2008 month by month till liquidation of loan alongwith interest accruing in the meantime. The petitioner will give an affidavit incorporating the said undertaktng to the Bank within two weeks from today. If the petitioner defaults in any payment, as noticed aforesaid, Bank would be at a liberty to proceed in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

(3.) THIS disposes of the writ application itself.