5.In the above circumstances, the petitioner has a legitimate and reasonable doubt as to the action taken by the respondent bank in adjusting the entire matured fixed deposit amounts towards the petitioner's liability and proceeding with the SARFAESI proceedings. Although the petitioner company admits that the company is liable to make good the amount due to the respondent bank, nevertheless the contention of the petitioner is that the bank is not willing to provide any detailed statement of account as to how much amount was adjusted on what date and what was the interest earned by the various fixed deposits deposited by the petitioner with the respondent bank. According to the petitioner, the fixed deposit had matured in 2007 and those deposits were remained as deposits and must have earned sufficient interest over the period and in which event, the petitioner is entitled to know as to what total amount which was adjusted by the bank towards the petitioner's liability. While so, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent on 31.10.2017 stating that the fixed deposit amount had been closed and adjusted towards loan amount. In the communication, dated 31.10.2017, it is shown as if, the four bank guarantees taken by the petitioner company had been invoked. This is contrary to the fact that there was no occasion for the petitioner company to invoke the bank guarantee, since the Electricity Board had failed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the bank guarantees remained without being invoked and therefore, it cannot be shown as a liability at all. Therefore, the petitioner has reasonable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ apprehension that the respondent bank has randomly adjusted the deposits without disclosing the true statement of account regarding
