Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34411-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5088 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Babita Agrawal Respondent :- Authorised Officer State Bank Of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ankit Srivastava Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner is the wife of Murlidhar Agrawal, who is the proprietor of M/S Shree Geeta Bhandar, Lucknow. The husband, who is the proprietor and borrower having taken a loan from the opposite parties, had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ-C No.6952 of 2023, which was disposed of on 16.08.2023 in the following terms:- "Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Bank. By present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.05.2023, by which an amount of Rs.28,69,722/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent Bank states that the amount of Rs.29,77,668/- as on 11.08.2023 is due to be paid by petitioner against his loan. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire loan amount with the respondent Bank in easy installments. Learned counsel for respondent Bank has no objection in case the petitioner deposits the loan amount in installments. In view of aforesaid, with the consent of parties counsel, the following order is passed:- The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the respondent Bank within a month from today and rest amounts in three equal installments within nine months thereafter. The interest shall be paid with the last installment. The amount, which is already deposited by the petitioner, shall be taken into consideration while fixing the installments. Subject to the said payments, the notice dated 31.05.2023 shall remain stayed. In case of two consecutive failures of installments, it shall be open for the respondent authorities to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of." 3. A schedule for payment of the loan amount in installments had been fixed, but it could not be paid. An extension was sought by means of C.M. Application No.IA/2/2023 in the said writ petition, which was considered and an order was passed on 05.04.2024 in the following terms:- "C.M. Application No. IA/2/2023 - Extension of Time Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent/Bank. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that out of the total due amount he has only paid an amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs against the total outstanding amount of Rs.20,92,170/-. He could not pay the remaining amount as his father suffered from cancer. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire loan amount with the respondent-Bank in easy instalments. Learned counsel for respondent Bank as per instructions submits that Rs.20,92,170/- is due as on date upon the petitioner. He has no objection in case the petitioner deposits the loan amount in easy instalments. In view of aforesaid, with the consent of parties counsel, the following order is passed. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakh with the respondent Bank within a period of one month from today and rest amount shall be deposited in two equal installments within eight months. The interest shall be paid with the last instalment. The amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner, shall be taken into consideration while fixing the instalments. Subject to the said payments, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. In case of failure of the first instalment and thereafter of two installments as directed hereinabove, it shall be open for the respondent authorities to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the present application stands disposed of." 4. Despite it, the loan amount was not paid by the borrower husband. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming to be the guarantor of the same loan challenging a notice issued to her under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner if aggrieved on merits can file objections under sub-section 3(A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If she is willing to pay the money, she can approach the Bank with her offer, which shall be considered as per law as assured by learned counsel for the Bank. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 3.6.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench