schedule property. This time, the applicants take the plea of closure of one of the accounts after demand notice and regularity of the other account. The respondent refuted the contention stating that one account is closed and outstanding amount is still due in another account and that payment of a few instalments does not make the account regular. The respondent bank herein being urban cooperative bank is under the regulation and supervision of the Reserve Bank of India. In this context, it is made clear that the Banks/Fls are bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time or its own regulations; with regard to declaration of an account as NPA and/or to regularize the account. Hence, the decision to regularize an account is entirely within the arena of work of the secured creditor. In the case of applicants, the respondent bank in clear terms states that loan account STML-330 is not regularized. The respondent bank also stated the fact of closure of only one account in the Sec.14 application. Such is the affirmative stand taken by the respondent bank, it cannot be prevented from continuing the SARFAESI proceedings against the secured asset for recovery of legitimate dues.
