IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9666/2008
(Shree Shyam Finvest (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. SBBJ & Ors.)
Date of order : 02.12.2008
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is not disputing the
dues against him but he is made a request to settle
the amount till 31.3.2009 vide Annexure-3.
Thereafter, without consider the prayer of the
petitioner, a notice was given to the petitioner Firm
under Section 31 (2) of the Securitization &
Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement and
Security Interest Act, 2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that thereafter, he has repeatedly made prayer for
granting some breathing time to settle the amount but
his representation for granting time was rejected by
the respondents vide order dated 20.11.2008 on the
ground that the prayer is on uncertain terms for the
date and amount to be deposited.
In this case, upon material available on
record, it is obvious that the petitioner is ready to
pay the dues but he is praying that some time may be
granted. In my opinion, the purpose of the Bank is to
recover the amount and not to crush the borrowers,
therefore, the action of the Bank should be
reasonable.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner
may file a fresh representation specifying the date
for payment before the respondent – Bank within a
period of one week from today. Upon filing the said
representation, the Bank authorities are directed to
consider and decide the same within a period of
fifteen days thereafter and grant some breathing time
to the petitioner for depositing the outstanding
amount. It is also made clear that remedy against the
action of the respondents is available to the
petitioner by way of filing appeal but before that it
is expected that the Bank authorities will consider
the prayer of the petitioner for depositing the amount
within stipulated time. Further, it is made clear
that till decision of the representation, no coercive
action method shall be adopted against the petitioner
– Firm for recovery.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.