I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.K. Das, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmick, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner No. 1 availed a cash credit facility to the extent of Rupees 15,00,000/- from Agartala Branch of the Respondent Bank. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors and mortgaged their immovable property for securing the said cash credit facility.

3. According to the Petitioners, due to slump in the market, the business of the Petitioner No. 1 suffered a set back and, consequently, an arrears of Rs. 1,17,630.00 became due and payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent bank, whereupon Respondent No. 3, on 30-11-2007, classified the account as non-performing asset. The Petitioner No. 1, however, continued to make deposits in the account. When the balance outstanding as against the loan, which had been granted in favour of the Petitioner No. 1, in the form of cash credit facility stood outstanding, the Respondent bank issued a letter, on 2-1-2008, demanding recalling of the entire outstanding amount together with interest and other charges and also the guarantee, which the guarantors had provided. Notwithstanding the notice so issued, when the outstanding balance, in the account, stood at Rs. 14,82,630.00, Respondent No. 2 issued, on 2-9-2008, 60 days' notice to the Petitioners informing them that due to non-payment of interest/non-deposit of sale proceeds, the account has been classified as non-performing asset as per the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines and the total amount of Rs. 16,17,630.00 with further interest, with effect from 1-12-2007, shall be paid within 60 days from the date of the notice and, in default, besides exercising other rights, which may be available with the Respondent bank under the law, the Respondent bank intends to exercise any or all of the powers provided to them under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the letter, dated 2-9-2008, aforementioned, it was further conveyed to the Petitioners that in terms of Section 13(3) of the Act, they shall not, after receipt of the notice, transfer, by way of sale, lease or otherwise, any of the secured assets, mortgaged by them with the Respondent bank, without prior written consent of the bank and, if for any reason, the secured assets is sold or leased out in the ordinary course of business, the sale proceeds or income realized shall be deposited/remitted with/to the Respondent bank. The Petitioner No. 1, however, as the Petitioners claim, continued to make deposits and also made a representation to the Respondent bank, on 20-11-2008, seeking one time settlement of the dues payable to the Respondent bank by offering to pay Rs. 10,00,000.00 as one time settlement.

4. By letter dated 17-11-2008, addressed to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2, as authorized officer of the Punjab National Bank, which is the secured creditor, informed the Petitioners that despite the notice, dated 2-9-2008, issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, since the amount, due to the Respondent bank, had not been paid by the Petitioners, the Respondent Bank had decided to take possession of the secured assets, the details of which were given in the said letter. By his letter, dated 17-11-2008, aforementioned, Respondent No. 2 called upon the Petitioner No. 1 to deliver possession of the secured assets before 15-12-2008 failing which the creditor would take over possession of the said secured assets.

5. On the ground that the Petitioners, though belatedly, have paid part of the dues payable by them and in the face of the fact that a part of the dues have been paid and the offer of one time settlement has been made, the Respondent Bank ought not to have been proceeding in exercise of their powers under the Act, the Petitioners have filed this writ