Disposed

P. Sreenivas Murthy v. Bank of Baroda

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2020WP/1782/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of connected writ petitions challenging possession recovery actions and notices under the SARFAESI Act. Granting six weeks to clear the dues, no coercive steps were allowed pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six weeks to clear entire amount; no coercive steps to be taken till then.

P. Sreenivas Murthy Vs Bank of Baroda — 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 Nos. 1704 AND 4251 OF 2020

¶5

COMMON ORDER: ( per Honourable Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai )

¶6

Since the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and as they are connected, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this common order.

¶7

Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

¶8

In W.P.No. 1704 of 2020, grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Bank authorities are attempting to take possession of the subject properties without recourse to law and without issuing any notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act'). The said writ petition came to be filed on 24-01-2020. According to learned counsel, the petitioner herein availed overdraft of Rs.98,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 30-04-2013. On 31-03-2019, the account of the petitioner was declared as NPA and according to the learned counsel, it was declared so on technical grounds only but not due to any default.

¶9

In W.P.No. 4251 of 2020, the petitioner challenges notice dated 13-02-2020 issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act. In W.P.No. 4251 of 2020, though status quo was granted on 20-02-2020, the same was not extended thereafter.

¶10

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after filing W.P.No. 1704 of 2020, the petitioner paid Rs.58,70,000/- and, after interim order granted by this Court on 20-02-2020, the petitioner paid another sum of Rs.24,00,000/-. The outstanding amount, according to the learned counsel, is Rs.27,11,838/-.

¶11

¶12

AVSS, J. & KSR, J. wp_1704 & 4251_2020

¶13

During the course of hearing, on instructions from his client, learned counsel for the petitioner has come up with a proposal that the petitioner herein is ready to clear the entire amount if reasonable time is granted.

¶14

Counter affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions strongly raising objections to the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. It is also the submission of learned counsel that the present writ petitions, by-passing the provision of appeal to the Tribunal, cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

The factum of making payments by the petitioner subsequent to filing of the present writ petitions, as mentioned supra , is not in dispute. Having regard to the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner to grant six weeks' time to clear the entire amount due, this Court, instead of going into the merits and demerits of the writ petitions, deems it appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions, permitting the petitioner herein to pay the entire amount due to the respondent-Bank within a period of six weeks from today. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. It is also made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the above said condition, it is open for the respondent-Bank to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶16