SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken against him by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Act’).
(2). The petitioner has availed Cash Credit Limit facility upto Rs. 40 lacs. The petitioner's own case is that against the said limit of Rs. 40 lacs, he has drawn about Rs. 33 lacs besides interest though learned counsel for the respondent-Bank seriously contends that more than Rs. 52 lacs along with interest is the overdue amount against him.
(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that the secured asset, namely, the shop is the only source of livelihood for his family. He points out that after filing of the writ petition the petitioner has deposited more than Rs. 7 lacs with the Bank and he further undertakes to minimize the loan liability in future by way of monthly deposits.
(4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration all the attending circumstances and also the petitioner's offer and his willingness to settle the account, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that so long as the petitioner continues to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac per month, the action under Section 13(4) of the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, in the event of any default, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner, if still aggrieved, may approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
(5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.