Petitioners challenged the bank's initiation of recovery proceedings and possession of properties under the SERFAESI Act via a writ petition. The court recorded that the petitioners had paid the outstanding dues after the notice, declaring the writ petition infructuous and dismissing it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 11356 of 2004
Between:
1 M/s. Adapa Gollamma Educational Society, rep. by its President
Adapa Govindaraju, 9-1, Pepakayalapalem, Karapa Mandal,
E.G.District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 Bank of India, Devalayam Street, Kakinada,
rep. by its the Branch Manager. 2 The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Viskahapatnam.
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating steps towards recovery of the dues payable by the petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the properties belonging to the 3rd and 4th petitioner as illegal without jurisdiction and malafide and consequently direct the respondents not to conduct sale/confirm the sale of their properties i.e., Ac. 2.50 gts of agricultural land in Sy.
No. 258/1 at Kandregula village, East Godavari District and Building bearing D.No.10-19,MIG, APIIC Ltd., Housing Complex, Ramanayyapeta, near Kakinada.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. M.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO, STANDING COUNSEL FOR BANK OF INDIA
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
First petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and petitioners 2 to 4 are its office bearers. The society has availed loan in September, 1999 for establishment of educational institutions in the name and style of ‘Millennium Public School’. As there was default, the respondent – bank initiated action under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SERFAESI Act, for brevity) demanding first petitioner to pay outstanding amount of Rs.15,74,521/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy four thousand and five hundred and twenty one only). The petitioners did not comply with the notice and therefore the respondent - bank on 13.1.2004 served an order under Section 13(4) of the SERFAESI Act and took possession of the properties. Contending that Section 31(i) excludes agricultural property from the provisions of the of the SERFAESI Act petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the action of the respondent – bank.
After receiving notice, respondent bank appears through its Counsel Sri S.Suryaprakasa Rao, who submits that after service of order under Section 13(4) of the SERFAESI Act, first petitioner society has paid entire outstanding amount and documents were also returned. The same is recorded and as nothing survives in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
(V.V.S.RAO, J) 4.11.2004
bnr
To
3. 2CD copies
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' actions under the SERFAESI Act illegal without jurisdiction and malafide.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Adapa Gollamma Educational Society
Adapa Govindaraju
Adapa Venkateswara Rao
K. Saiprakash
Bank of India
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
