Dismissed

Ummadi Ramasubba Reddy, v. The State Bank of India (Adb 1603)

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2020WP/17565/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 17565 of 2019, the Court disposed of a challenge to a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that since no measures under Section 13(4) had been taken, the proper forum for the borrower to assail the bank's action is the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed and the interim stay order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim stay order dated 07.11.2019 is vacated.

Ummadi Ramasubba Reddy, Vs The State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.17565 of 2019

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶7

Though the matter appears under the caption ‘for admission’, with the consent of both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition.

¶8

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the notice, dated 30.07.2019, issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), and the letter F/80, dated 16.10.2019.

¶9

According to the petitioner, he availed loan from the respondent-bank. In view of the default committed by the petitioner, respondent-bank declared the loan account as ‘NPA’ and pressed into service the provisions of the Act. A notice, under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, came to be issued by the respondent-bank on 30.07.2019. In response to the said notice, petitioner herein submitted objections/ representations, under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, on

¶10

AVSS,J & KSR,J W.P.No.17565 of 2019

¶11

¶12

26.08.2019, and sought for extension of the benefit under ‘Runa Samaadhan Scheme’. The respondent-bank vide letter, dated 16.10.2019, rejected the request of the petitioner herein. In the above background, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶13

This Court, on 07.11.2019, passed an interim order of stay. Now, a vacate application vide I.A.No.01 of 2020 is filed by the respondent-bank requesting this Court to vacate the said interim order. In the counter-affidavit, filed in support of the vacate application, it is stated that ‘Runa Samaadhan Scheme’ is not applicable to the petitioner herein and the said scheme was closed on 31.10.2017 and the petitioner herein, after lapse of the said scheme, filed the application on 20.03.2019. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-bank that the present Writ Petition is a premature one and no further steps, pursuant to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, have been taken. It is also his submission that, only after measures are taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, the cause arises for the petitioner to file an application before the appropriate forum of law, i.e. under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act reads as under:

¶14

17. Right to appeal:

¶15

(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an

¶16

AVSS,J & KSR,J W.P.No.17565 of 2019

¶17

¶18

application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken.

¶19

It is very much evident from the above provision of law that any person including the borrower is entitled to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against any measures referred to under sub-Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act by the secured creditor. In the instant case, since no further steps have been taken, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to assail the said course of action by the respondent-bank in an appropriate forum of law and to raise all the issues, including the issues that have been raised in the present Writ Petition.

¶20

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main Writ Petition, interim order, dated 07.11.2019, stands vacated.

¶21

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

¶22

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶23

______________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J

¶24

09^th December, 2020. Tsy

Ummadi Ramasubba Reddy, v. The State Bank of India (Adb 1603)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummadi Ramasubba Reddy, v. The State Bank of India (Adb 1603)

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

Botta (Kandula) Krishna Madhuri, Vs Bottu Venkat Rama Krishna

B.Ravichandra Vs Authorized Officer

Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Kamadhenu Cotton and Agro Industries Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Yatham Nageswara Reddy and 13 Others Vs Chinthapalli Marreddy and 15 Others

Meridian Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Harini and Co.