ORDER : Initially, the writ petition was filed seeking quashing of letter dated 22.06.2009, whereby the restructuring proposal of the company namely, M/s. National Steel Furniture was rejected and the respondent-bank directed the petitioners to submit a compromise proposal. Subsequently, the prayer clause in the writ petition was permitted to be amended by incorporating the prayer seeking a direction upon the respondents to issue “No Dues Certificate” and to return the excess amount paid by the petitioners and to return the land deed, which was deposited in the bank as security. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners took cash credit limit facility for Rs.10 Lacs from Canara Bank. After 15.05.2007, when the last cheque was issued/cleared by the respondent-Canara Bank, the petitioners sought renewal of their account in September, 2007 however, such request was turned down. The petitioners made representations and requested to provide restructured loan of Rs.5 lacs however, notice dated 14.05.2008 was issued to the petitioners for payment of loan amount. The petitioners vide letter dated 10.06.2008 showed their willingness to repay the balance amount in installments and they requested for providing fresh credit limit of Rs.5 lacs under the rehabilitation scheme. However, a demand notice dated 25.11.2008 was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their representation on 15.12.2008 seeking withdrawal of demand notice dated 25.11.2008. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank vide letter dated 15.05.2009 directed the petitioners to submit plan for repayment of the debt amount and to disclose the source of income. The petitioners submitted their proposal for restructuring of the loan on 09.02.2009 and vide letter dated 16.06.2009, the petitioners were asked to furnish further details for restructuring proposal however, the petitioners' proposal for restructuring the loan account was turned down on 22.06.2009 and the petitioners were directed to give compromise proposal. The petitioners thereafter, submitted another representation on 30.06.2009 showing their willingness to pay the debt amount in monthly installments of Rs.25,000/per month. During the pendency of the writ petition, a possession notice dated 11.09.2009 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the respondent-Canara Bank, which was impugned by filing I.A. No.2838 of 2009. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed raising an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, a possession notice dated 11.09.2009 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the respondent-Canara Bank, which was impugned by filing I.A. No.2838 of 2009. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed raising an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for enforcing security interest created by the guarantor namely, Sushila Devi Pandit. On 01.04.2008, the loan account was classified as nonperforming asset and accordingly, a demand notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 25.11.2008 to the petitioners and guarantor simultaneously. The petitioners and the guarantor namely, Sushila Devi Pandit willfully defaulted in the payment of the outstanding debt amount. Though the petitioners were required to submit compromise proposal on or before 26.06.2009, they submitted representation on 30.06.2009 which were only reiteration of the restructuring proposal submitted by them, which was already rejected vide letter dated 22.06.2009. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners referring to the interim order dated 07.10.2009 submits that after the interim protection was granted to the petitioners, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lacs within time and they continued to deposit Rs. 25,000/per month as ordered by this Court and by 14.06.2013, the balance liability against the petitioners was 13,764/. After capitalization of debit interest, the balance came to Rs. 14,168/and the petitioners thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/on 11.07.2013 and thus, they paid Rs. 754 in excess of the balance loan liability. After the final adjustment, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 642/ and the loan account was closed. It is thus, submitted that the notice under Section 13(4) issued by the respondent-Bank on 11.09.2009 must be deemed to have become inoperative and stands cancelled. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that though the petitioners continued to deposit installments however, subsequently they committed default. The Bank has produced a detailed calculation chart disclosing that a sum of Rs. 4,72,725.89/is still due against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the Bank statement produced by the petitioners does not reflect the actual balance amount of the petitioners because due to mistake certain components were not included in the same. 7. The Bank has produced a detailed calculation chart disclosing that a sum of Rs. 4,72,725.89/is still due against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the Bank statement produced by the petitioners does not reflect the actual balance amount of the petitioners because due to mistake certain components were not included in the same. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the records, it appears that there is no dispute that the possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 11.09.2009 and vide interim order dated 07.10.2009 this Court stayed the proceeding under Securitization Act. The petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter they continued to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/till the loan liability of the petitioners was reduced below Rs. 15,000/. The Bank statement produced by the petitioners clearly reflects that the account was closed on 20.08.2013 after making payment of a sum of Rs. 642/to the petitioners. The respondent-Bank had extended cash credit limit of Rs. 10,00,000/to the petitioners and in the notice dated 11.09.2009 the total liability of the petitioners is indicated as Rs. 10,78,552/. The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 13,89,900/against the cash credit facility of Rs. 10,000,00/. Though, the proceeding under Securitization Act was stayed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2009 and this Court permitted the petitioners to pay initially a sum of Rs. 2,000,00/and thereafter Rs. 25,000/each month, however, the respondent-Bank again charged penal interest and /or compound interest on the amount of Rs. 10,78,552/. The respondent-Bank has filed a detailed calculation chart, which has been seriously disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners have produced a calculation chart from a Chartered Accountant, which indicates that the bank has charged interest upto 20.46% from the petitioners. The interim order dated 07.10.2009 was not objected by the respondent-Cananra Bank by filing appeal against the said order. The interim order dated 07.10.2009 does not reflect that the respondent-Canara Bank is entitled to charge interest and levy penal interest/compound interest etc. on the amount reflected in notice dated 11.09.2009 and therefore, I find that calculation furnished by the respondent-Bank cannot be accepted. It has not been brought on record when the alleged mistake was detected by the respondent-Bank. The interim order dated 07.10.2009 does not reflect that the respondent-Canara Bank is entitled to charge interest and levy penal interest/compound interest etc. on the amount reflected in notice dated 11.09.2009 and therefore, I find that calculation furnished by the respondent-Bank cannot be accepted. It has not been brought on record when the alleged mistake was detected by the respondent-Bank. To a pointed query, whether any notice was issued to the petitioners for payment of alleged balance amount, the learned counsel for the respondent-Canara Bank admits that no notice was issued to the petitioners. It is an admitted position that after the loan account was closed on 20.08.2013, no notice was issued to the petitioners in relation to the alleged calculation mistake. As far back as on 09.04.2013 in response to I.A. No.1793 of 2013 seeking direction upon the respondent-Bank to issue “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the petitioners, the respondent-Bank took time for ascertaining the balance outstanding loan, if any, however, an affidavit showing outstanding balance amount of Rs. 4,72,725.89/ was filed only on 16.10.2014. 9. In view of specific order of this court dated 7.10.2009 and the fact that after the loan account was closed, no notice was ever issued to the petitioners, the plea of mistake in calculation taken by the respondent-Bank cannot be accepted. As noticed above, in view of interim order dated 07.10.2009 the respondent-Bank was not entitled to charge penal interest, compound interest etc. from the petitioners. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioners have discharged their loan liability and the respondent-Bank is under duty to issue “No Objection Certificate” and hand over the land documents to the petitioners. 11. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2838 of 2009 and I.A. No. 2324 of 2014 stand allowed.