Disposed

Syed Irfan, v. Authorized Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2019WP/12776/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an E-auction notice under the SARFAESI Act. The bank did not proceed with the auction due to lack of bidders. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to pay dues to retain the property, warning of further legal proceedings on default.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- before 04.10.2019 and balance thereafter to retain the property.

Syed Irfan, Vs Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.No.12776 of 2019 04.09.2019

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12776 of 2019

¶7

ORDER : (Per the Honourable Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti)

¶8

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking verbatim the following relief:

¶9

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuance of E-Auction notice, dated 04.08.2019, thereby notified that E-Auction will be conducted on 04.09.2019 for the residential house of petitioner in bearing Door No.2-43 of Anumalipeta, China Bazaar, Desaipeta Gramapanchayat in Vetapalem Mandal of Prakasam District contrary to the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the E-auction notice dated 04.08.2019 pass such other order or orders….”

¶10

We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and of learned standing counsel for Andhra Bank appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2. We have perused the material record.

¶11

Shorn of unnecessary details, it is relevant to note that after the loan account was declared as an N.P.A., (non-performing asset) and the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

¶12

2 MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.No.12776 of 2019 04.09.2019

¶13

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’), the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, and filed S.A.No.413 of 2018 questioning the actions of the respondents, particularly the action initiated by the bank pursuant to the possession notice, dated 04.10.2018. The said S.A. was disposed of by an order, dated 03.12.2018, of the Tribunal and the Tribunal permitted the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding amount due and payable to the bank in instalments and fixed a schedule for payments to be made in instalments and directed the bank to maintain status quo in respect of the properties till six months from the date of the order. Admittedly, the petitioner only made some payment and failed to adhere to the schedule of instalments. According to the petitioner, the petitioner last paid Rs.2,50,000/- and another Rs.2,50,000/- in the month of May, 2019 but did not pay any further amount after the present sale notice, dated 04.08.2019, was issued proposing to auction the secured assets on 04.09.2019.

¶14

In this backdrop, it is fairly stated by both the learned counsel that the bank is not going to conduct auction as proposed, on 04.09.2019, as no bidders came forward.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the writ petition may be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to pay Rs.4,00,000/- before 04.10.2019 and the entire balance within a short time thereafter and retain the property. However, learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that since sometime would be taken for again brining the property to sale, the petitioner shall discharge the entire loan amount due and payable to the bank before the next auction date is fixed for sale of the secured assets.

¶16

MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.No.12776 of 2019 04.09.2019

¶17

¶18

Recording the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner as sought for, nonetheless, making it clear that on the failure of the petitioner to make payments as now undertaken and recorded supra, the bank shall be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, however, in strict accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶19

No order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶21

dismissed.

¶22

_________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶23

_____________ J.UMA DEVI, J

¶24

Note: Issue C.C. by 09.09.2019.

¶25

(B/o) GHN

Syed Irfan, v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Irfan, v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheemavarapu Madhusudhana Rao Vs The Authorised Officer

P. Mary John Vs M/S Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DakkumallaJapamma, Vs State Bank of India

D Jayaprakash Vs M Radhika

M.Venkata Reddy Vs Canara Bank

M/s.Sri Chakra Eden Greens Projects Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer