Dismissed

Sri Om Sai Siva Jyothi Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC7 Jun 2010WP/11456/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order in a writ petition dismissed the petition at the admission stage. The court held that the relief sought regarding One Time Settlement (OTS) applications was premature and misconceived. It ruled that granting OTS approval is not a statutory obligation enforceable under Article 226 by mandamus as the scheme lacked a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed no; parties open to negotiate OTS application with bank.

Sri Om Sai Siva Jyothi Traders, Rep. by its… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶4

W.P.NO.11456 of 2010

¶5

07-06-2010

¶6

BETWEEN;

¶7

Sri Om Sai Siva Jyothi Traders, rep. byits Proprietor T.V.Reddy

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

State Bank of India, Ongole, rep. by its Chief Manager

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶15

W.P.NO.11456 of 2010

¶16

ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J)

¶17

The alleged inaction of the respondent-bank in not considering the petitioner’ applications dated 21-04-2010 and 14-05-2010 for One Time Settlement (OTS under Small and Medium Enterprises Non Performing Assets One Tim Settlement Scheme 2010, is a grievance presented in this writ petition, seeking consequent direction to the respondent to process and consider the petitioner’ applications.

¶18

The petitioner is a proprietary firm, which is in the rice milling business i Dronadula Village, Marthuru Mandal, Prakasam District. It availed a cash cred loan from the respondent-bank and furnished immovable securities and collatera guarantees thereby creating a secured asset to secure the interest of th respondent for the loan advanced. According to the petitioner, the responden

¶19

bank filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam i O.A.No.12 of 2007 for recovery of the amounts due by the proprietor of th petitioner-firm and his wife. It would appear that the DRT, Visakhapatnam passe an ex parte decree against the respondent in O.A.No.12 of 2007 whereupon th said respondent filed an application for condonation of delay in filing th application to set aside the ex parte decree in M.A.5 of 2009. It is further pleade that the DRT by its order dated 18-05-2009 condoned the delay and had also se aside the ex parte decree. The substantive issue in O.A is stated to b pending before the Tribunal. While so, the respondent by a publication invite applications for settlement of the amounts due to it under OTS scheme Pursuant to such notification, the petitioner submitted applications one on 21-04 2010 and another on 14-05-2010 requesting the respondent to consider th applications for providing OTS. Along with the application dated 21-04-2010 th petitioner pleads to have deposited Rs.2 lakhs by way of term deposit in th name of Vemula Srinivasa Rao. However, there is no response to the petitioner’ application for OTS, is a grievance herein.

¶20

The relief sought in the writ petition is premature and misconceived. Th scheme allegedly notified by the respondent-bank proposing a OTS for Small an Medium Enterprises does not set out any time frame within which the extensio for OTS would be considered. However, admittedly the petitioner made th applications on 21-04-2010 and 14-05-2010. The respondent has not rejected th applications nor is any such rejection challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory Accord of approval for a OTS is not a statutory or a legal obligation of th respondent-bank liable to be enforced by issuance of writ in the nature o Mandamus in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶21

In the aforesaid reasons there are no merits. The writ petition is according dismissed at the stage of admission. It is however open to the petitioner and th respondent to negotiate appropriately and in accordance with the rationa discretion of the respondent-bank with regard to OTS application made by th petitioner. No costs.

______________

GODA RAGHURAM,J

______________

NOUSHAD ALI,J

7^th JUNE 2010

TSNR

Sri Om Sai Siva Jyothi Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Om Sai Siva Jyothi Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Continental Engineering Corporation Vs The Government of A.P.

Smt. Kankanala Aruna Vs Idbi Bank

Vision Care Optical, Vs Union Bank of India

M/s. Azam Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited Vs Government of India, Ministry of Finance

Nallala Mallesham Vs Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal