RAMESH SINGH v. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR HAJIGANJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5086 of 2010 1. RAMESH SINGH S/O SRI KARAMVIR SINGH R/O BAHARI DHAWALPURA, CHOWK KALAN, BEGAMPUR, P.S.- CHOWK, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR HAJIGANJ, P.S.- CHOWK, DISTT.- PATNA 2. THE STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR FRAZER ROAD, PATNA-1 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, REGIONAL OFFICE, ABHAY BHAWAN, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA ----------- 2

30.03.2010 The petitioner had taken a loan of Rs 2, 50,000/- in the year, 2005 and an overdraft facility of Rs 3 lacs in the year, 2006 from the respondent-State Bank of India of Bikaner and Jaipur, Hajiganj Branch, Patnacity. He had defaulted in repayment. The accounts became NPA. Bank ultimately was forced to take action under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) by notifying the mortgaged property for sale which sale is fixed for today. The property to be sold which was mortgaged is the only residential house of the petitioner. Petitioner, with reference to public notice (Annexure-2), points out that for recovery of about Rs 3,50,108/- from one account and about Rs 3,22,231 from another account as on 30.11.2008, the residential property of the petitioner of which the reserved price has been fixed by the Bank itself at Rs 10 lacs is to be sold making the petitioner homeless. Petitioner is ready to liquidate the dues if some accommodation is given having fallen on bad time and unable to pay the debt promptly. 2 Having considered the matter, I direct respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur will not sell the property of the petitioner pursuant to the public notice for sale issued. This would, however, be subject to petitioner’s depositing a sum of Rs 1 lac by 07th of April, 2010 with the respondent-Bank and a further sum of Rs 1 lac by 14th of April, 2010. As per the respondent-Bank, the dues, as on 31.03.2010, is about Rs 4 lacs in one account and about Rs 3.70 lacs in another. The total would be about Rs 7.50 lacs. On payment of Rs 2 lacs aforesaid, Rs 1 lac in each account, the balance of about Rs 5.50 lacs would be paid by the petitioner by 31st July, 2010. This is, however, subject to the Bank extending all benefits, which it is extending to similar defaulters, like waiver of interest, partial or otherwise etc. If that is done, the liability would reduce considerably. This would, however, be subject to interest being charged at PLR rates or such that may be authorised. But if the dues are not settled and cleared by 31st of July 2010, it would be deemed that no order has been passed by this Court and the Bank would be free to sell the properties as mortgaged to it. With these observations, the writ petition stands