Dismissed

Alapati Vajra Ambica Prasad v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Apr 2023WP/5752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the issuance of a possession security interest enforcement notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court found that the prescribed procedure and notice requirements were properly followed, refusing interference at that stage though allowing a representation for renewal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to make representation for renewal or approach DRT within two weeks.

Alapati Vajra Ambica Prasad Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV-

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 5752 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Alapati Vajra Ambica Prasad, S/o.late Alapati Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 67 West GodavariBusiness.District. R/o.D.No.22-8-6, Chadhalavadavari Street. Powerpet’ Eluru

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'' Delhr Secretary - Ministry of Finance and Banking, New

¶14

Union Bank of India, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Eluru Branch, 22B-13-19, Prasad Mansion, Venkatarama Power Press Road, Powerpet Eluru West Godavari District. r . .

¶15

The Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Eluru Branch, 22B-13-19. Prasad Mansion. Venkatarama Power Press Road Powerpet. Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be P eased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or respondent in issuing a Possession Security Interest Enforcement Rules SARFAESI Act, 2002, in relation to the petitioner's Loan th No.560331 000028413 with the 2nd respondent, regularized pursuant to the Sec. 13(2) Notice 2021-2022, dated 3.1.2022 under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and SrisdS anJTSf operated, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in nt * petition,, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all the further proceedings pursuant to the Possession Notice dated.28.02.2023 in relation to the petitioner’s Loan Account CMTc2

¶20

Account No.560331000028413 with the 2"^ respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. RAGHU FOR M/s. V. SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI N. HARINATH, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SMT. V. DYUMANI, SC FOR UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶24

Writ Petition No. 5752 of 2023

¶25

ORDER; fper Sri Justice D. V.S.S.Somayajulu)

¶26

Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶27

In the arguments submitted by the learned senior i counsel, the essential ground urged is based upon the judgment in M/s. Amar Alloys Pvt. Limited (Regd.} v. State Bank of India^. Learned counsel argued that classification of account as NPA merely on the ground of non-renewal of limits is not correct. In that view of the matter, he submits that all the subsequent actions which were taken are also not correct and therefore, this Court should interfere and allow the writ petition. Without prejudice to the primary contention, learned senior counsel ‘ also submits that the petitioner is willing to execute all the

¶28

' PLR (2019) 195P&H81

¶29

etc. It is pointed out that if there are temporary deficiencies, classification of an account as NPA on the ground of non renewal remains understandable but this is a case of chronic default and failure to renew the account despite adequate opportunities starting from 2021 itself. Therefore, she submits that the judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the case.

¶30

After considering the submissions made, this Court has to agree as what has stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The procedure stipulated has been followed and notice has been issued as necessary under the provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This was proceeded by two letters dated 01.09.2021 and 26.11.2021. Even to the objections raised to the demand notice, the reply has been given within the stipulated time. In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any reason to interfere at this stage or grant the order as prayed for.

¶31

**• **

¶32

Wnt Petition is therefore dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents for renewal of the limits. If such application is made, the

¶33

same may be considered and disposed of on its own merits within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is also given liberty to approach the DRT. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR > • V //TRUE COPY// SECT^OFFICER To. OFFICER 1. The Secretary - Ministry of Finance and Banking. Union of India, its New 2. V Branch. 22B-13-19 Prasad ot r t Press Road. Powerpet. Eluru. West Godavari LxIOU Id. 3. Branch" Bank of India. Eluru pZ^rn Mansion. Venkatarama Power Press Road Powerpet. Eluru. West Godavari District. 4. One CC to M/s. V. Sesha Kumari. Advocate [OPUC] ft. An! rn o" !^®rinath. Deputy Solicitor General of India {OPUCl 6. One CC to Smt. Dyumani. SC for Union Bank of India (OPUC) I wo C.D. Copies ' Cnr

/■

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/04/2023

ORDER

WP.No.5752 of 2023

¶41