Partly allowed

Yemineni Kondayya v. Authorised Officer Union of India

Telangana HC3 Aug 2009WP/15668/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directs petitioner to submit objections to Section 13(2) notice and pay half due amount; parties must consider representation; petition dismissed at admission stage without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit objections to notice and pay half due; respondent to consider representation for rescheduling installments before dispossession; writ petition dismissed.

Yemineni Kondayya Vs Authorised Officer Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND

¶2

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION No : 15668 of 2009

¶4

O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

¶5

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate his house property bearing Door No. 15-8-15 situated at 3^rd Ward, 1^st Block, covered by T.S. No. 61 of Tenali Municipal limits and the notice, dated 13^th May 2009 issued by the 1^st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he availed housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and retail trade loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the 2^nd respondent bank, repayable in nine years in equated monthly installments and created security interest over the above referred property. For sometime, he was regular in discharging the liability in installments, but later on, committed default.

¶7

While so, on 30^th July 2009, the authorities of the respondents came to the house of the petitioner and served the notice, dated 13^th May 2009, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the 2002 Act'), demanding to repay the entire outstanding amount immediately, else they would evict him from the property in question. They obtained his signature on the notice and asked him to put the date as 19^th May 2009, as if they served him on the said date. His request to accept the installments therefrom was not acceded to.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that since the notice under Section 13(2) was served on him on 30^th July 2009, the respondents authorities ought to have taken steps after the expiry of statutory period of sixty days. As the respondents have been threatening to dispossess him from the house property, without following the procedure in accordance with law, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not afforded the petitioner any opportunity to put forth his objections/representation, as required under the provisions of the 2002 Act and therefore, it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶10

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had availed the loan from the 2^nd respondent bank, by mortgaging his property and after some time, he committed default in payment of the installments. However, the case of the petitioner is that though his signature was taken on the notice as 19^th May 2009, the impugned notice was served on him, on 30^th July 2009, denying him the opportunity to submit his explanation thereto.

¶11

In this factual scenario, it is not necessary for us to delve into the matter any further. Suffice, to direct the petitioner to submit his objections/representation to the impugned notice, issued under Section 13(2) and to pay half of the amount due and payable to the respondents bank, on or before 31^st August 2009. On such payment being made, the respondents bank shall consider the representation of the petitioner and the feasibility of granting installments so as to enable him to discharge the balance loan amount, in accordance with law.

¶12

With this, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs.

¶13

---------------------------(GHULAM MOHAMMED,J)

¶14

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶15

3^rd August 2009

¶16

ksld

¶17

..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To

¶18

1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}

¶19

3^rd August 2009

¶20

ksld

Yemineni Kondayya v. Authorised Officer Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yemineni Kondayya v. Authorised Officer Union of India

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

Smt.Chalasani Annapurna Vs The District Collector,Krishna District,at

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Vs Sri Uppala Mallesh

D. Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal

Sri Dharampal Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Rep.by its Chairman

Rasa Ashok Kumar S/o Sriramulu Vs Bank of Baroda, Masabtank Branch

Smt.Guggulam Mangamma Vs The Corporation Bank, (a Government of India Enterprise)