loan and the jewel loans which were being discharged in accordance to the contractual obligations. Ld.Counsel submits that despite applicant expressing his readiness to enter into an OTS with regard to the credit card loan, respondent bank has not been considering the same and has invoked the SARFAESI action for recovery of credit card over dues, for which no mortgage has been created. Ld.Counsel also submitted that the actions of the respondent bank are not sustainable since there is no security interest that is created for recovery of the credit card dues, while the other two loans, being the housing loan and jewel loan against which security is created are very much in order and applicant have been regular in his repayment schedule, owing to which declaring the account as an NPA or the subsequent actions of issuance of demand notice have no legal validity. It is the case of applicant that he is ready and willing to discharge their debts, but however respondent bank has been wilfully evading such a proposal from the borrower while intending to proceed under SARFAESI without any basis. Ld.Counsel further submits that the very invocation of SARFAESI when the secured debts could not be declared as an NPA is itself fallacious and therefore the actions of the respondent bank do not survive. It is also submitted that respondent bank has issued their SARFAESI notices against all the three loan accounts while admitting that the over dues are only in the credit card loan account, which is an unsecured debt and no SARFAESI action can be initiated for recovery of an unsecured loan. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for passing appropriate orders.
