Dismissed

Jay Krishna Industries v. Andhra Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2019WP/1583/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-consideration of representation for loan restructuring under an RBI circular in W.P. No.1583 of 2019. Court dismissed petition as SARFAESI Act procedures preceded the circular, allowing petitioner to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal under provisions of the Act.

Jay Krishna Industries Vs Andhra Bank — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.1583 of 2019

¶5

ORDER : ( per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

¶6

Heard Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶7

With a complaint that the respondent-bank authorities are not considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.01.2019, as per the circular bearing No.RBI/2018-19/100, DBR.No.BP.BC.18/21/ 04,048/ 2018-19, dated 01.01.2019, of the Reserve Bank of India, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶8

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner submitted a representation on 10.01.2019, requesting the respondentbank authorities to restructure the loan accounts as per the above referred circular of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶9

Now, a counter-affidavit, deposed by the Chief Manager of the respondent-bank, is filed, wherein it is stated that the circular, dated 01.01.2019, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner herein as the account of the petitioner was classified as NPA on 31.08.2018. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent-bank issued a notice, under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), on 01.09.2018, and the petitioner herein submitted his objections on 16.10.2018 and the same was followed by reply given by the respondent, dated 23.10.2018, obviously under Section 13 (3) (a) of

¶10

AVSS,J & MGR,J W.P.No.25941 of 2017

¶11

¶12

the Act. It is further stated that thereafter the bank issued possession notice, dated 20.11.2018, and also had taken possession of the rice mill property on 03.01.2019 through the Advocate-Commissioner.

¶13

In view of the above said steps taken by the respondent-bank, under the provisions of the Act, and taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit, at paragraph No.4, with regard to the circular of the RBI, dated 01.01.2019, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner herein to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of its grievance under the provisions of the Act.

¶14

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

A.V.SESHA SAI,J

¶17

M.GANGA RAO, J

¶18

03^rd December, 2019. Tsy

Jay Krishna Industries v. Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Krishna Industries v. Andhra Bank

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

Ch K Rao Vs Central Bank of Ind

P v Rao Vs Central Bank of India

Gadiparthi Venugopal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kuppa Tandava Sankar Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank

Yellapu Rama Rao Vs the Debts Recovery Tribunal

L. Poornachandra Rao Vs Corporation Bank