9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no reason why the Bank should be asked to desist from taking any further action under the SARFAESI Act. If interference is made by this Court in this matter, it would definitely hinder the right of the Bank to proceed further. In the interim order dated 9.4.2015, this Court had further observed that if the petitioner commits default in respect of the payments, it will be open for the respondent Bank to bring up the matter for further orders. It is submitted that after paying the amount as directed in the interim order dated 9.4.2015, no steps had been taken by the petitioner to regularise the term loan account by approaching the Bank. This fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that after paying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for. According to the Bank, all the accounts have become non-operational and the accounts had been treated as Non Performing Asset. Steps were taken by the Bank to take possession of the secured asset and effect sale of property. It is also submitted that the total amount payable by the petitioner as far as the term loan account is concerned would come to more than ₹ 2.64 Crores and the cash credit limit has exceeded ₹ 6.9 Crores. According to the Bank, the account cannot be regularised as the Unit is not viable. Further, it is submitted that though sufficient opportunities had been granted to repay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, this Court had directed the Bank to regularise the term loan account, if the amounts are paid in time. Necessarily, the Bank was under obligation to comply with the said direction. But, as the matter stands now, it seems that the amount outstanding is substantial and there is no valid proposal agreed upon by the parties to settle the liability. Even according to the petitioner, there is no proposal to discharge the liability within a short time frame. Therefore, there is no reason why the Bank should be asked to desist from taking any further action under the SARFAESI Act. If interference is made by this Court in this matter, it would definitely hinder the right of the Bank to proceed further. In the interim order dated 9.4.2015, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
