Dismissed

G.Santosh Kumar v. The State Bank of India, rep.by its Authorised Officer

Telangana HC13 Mar 2006WP/2293/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's seizure of secured assets under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act without replying to a borrower's representation. The court held the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available under Sec. 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy under Sec. 17 of the Act; no order as to costs.

G.Santosh Kumar Vs The State Bank of India, rep.by… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 2293 OF 2006

¶3

Between:

¶4

G. Santosh Kumar, S/o G. Krishnamurthy, Aged: 27 years, R/o H.No. 19-9 (Old), Vivekanandanagar Colony, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar Post, Hyderabad.

¶5

… PETITIONER

¶6

And:

¶7

The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Main Branch, Hyderabad.

¶8

… RESPONDENT

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶13

The writ petitioner availed a term loan from the respondent-Bank to a tune of Rs.5,40,000/- and defaulted in payment of installments. A notice u/Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 20.8.2005 calling upon the petitioner to discharge the outstanding liability in an amount of Rs. 4,90,202.99 ps, + interest from 31.3.2000. The petitioner was informed that on failure to repay the aforesaid amount with further interest and incidental expenses as specified in the notice, the bank would exercise all or any of the rights under sub-sec.(4) of Sec. 13

¶14

of the Act.

¶15

In respect to the above notice the petitioner submitted his explanation/reply dt 5.9.2005 seeking one time settlement for discharging the liability explaining the reasons for default and requesting deferment of any action u/sec. 13(4) of the Act for the reasons and in the circumstances spelt out in the explanation. But the respondent-bank without issuing any reply to the petitioner’s representation dt 5.9.2005, has proceeded to take possession of the secured assets u/Sec. 13(4) of the Act, is the complaint. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. V Union of India () for the contention that the respondent-bank is under an obligation to reply to the representation made by a borrower responding to the notice u/Sec. 13(2) of the Act and that the secured creditor/bank should respond to such representation made by a borrower before proceeding to take possession of the assets u/Sec. 13(4) of the Act.

¶16

In any event on behalf of the petitioner it is not stated as to what is the effect of an action of the secured creditor/bank taking possession of the secured assets u/Sec. 13(4) of the Act without replying to a representation made by a borrower pursuant to a notice u/Sec. 13(2) of the Act. Is the issuing of a reply by the secured creditor a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of taking possession of the assets u/Sec. 13(4) of the Act, is not an aspect that is urged by the petitioner.

¶17

The petitioner states that the secured assets have now been taken possession of by the respondent-Bank u/Sec. 13(4) of the Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action u/Sec. 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner has an available effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/Sec. 17 of the Act. The petitioner would like to pursue such remedy now, since the possession of the secured assets has been taken by the respondent-Bank.

¶18

In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner the liberty to pursue the remedies u/Sec. 17 of the Act. No order as to costs.

¶19

Dated: 13.03.2006 ----------------

¶20

Pvsn Justice G. Raghuram

G.Santosh Kumar v. The State Bank of India, rep.by its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Santosh Kumar v. The State Bank of India, rep.by its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Bali Reddy S/o Eshwar Reddy Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Karanam Guruvaiah, Vs The Station House Officer

G.Ratna Kumar Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, E.P.D.C. of A.P.

Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited, Bhimavaram, Vs The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee

Sai Marine Exports Private Limited, Rep.by its Vs The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee

Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee