Eligibility for debt relief requires loans to be overdue as of a specified date, which was not the case here.

J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

The petitioners approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the Bank and also seeking for an opportunity of being heard as provided under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act before dealing with the property over which security interest has been created by the petitioner while availing a loan from the respondent and to have the matter considered in the light of Ext.P7 order passed by the Debt Relief Commission. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agricultural loan of Rs.2.6 lakhs was availed by the petitioner on 6.2.2007 and that was being repaid promptly, though there were some defaults because of the loss of crops in the meanwhile. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible to have the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme declared by the Government and accordingly, all the liabilities of the petitioner under the loan, the same having been given prior to 31.12.2007, have been written off as borne by Ext.P7 issued by the Debt Relief Commission, inspite of which, the Bank is proceeding with further steps as borne by Ext.P6 notice dated 4.2.2010, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions that the loan was extended in February, 2007 which was liable to be repaid by way of 'ten yearly instalments' and the 1st instalment was due to be cleared only in February, 2008. The learned counsel further submits that the benefits under the Debt Relief Scheme is open only in respect of loan transactions, which have become 'overdue' on or before 31.12.2007. In the instant case, since the 1st instalment itself was liable to be cleared by the petitioner only in February, 2008 it was never 'overdue' as on 31.12.2007 and as such, the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of the said Scheme. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no record with regard to Ext.P7 at the hands of the respondent Bank and further that the observation in Ext.P7 itself shows that the eligibility is only with respect to the loan transaction which have become 'overdue' as on 31.12.2007 and that the communication given to the concerned party (whose particulars are not revealed but for the application No. given as 216395/08/ID), it is stated that no further relief needed to be extended under any circumstances. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P6 notice is not a proceeding under Section 13(2) and that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. There is absolutely no cause of action for the petitioner to have approached this Court or to have approached any other authority as contemplated under the Statute and that the present/alleged cause of action is premature.

4. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to draw a distinction with regard to the factual position as to a loan transaction, submitting that the entry against column No.4 of Ext.P1 Pass Book specified that the repayment was as per the schedule given in the last page (which however was not produced by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition), the learned counsel produced the original of the Pass Book, which reveals from the last page that the 1st yearly instalment as to repayment was to be effected on the 1st of March, 2008. This being the position, the case projected by the respondent Bank that the account was never 'overdue' as on 31.12.2007, so as to have avail the benefit of the Scheme stands vindicated.

In the above circumstances, no interference is warranted.

The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)

ps