Dismissed

M/s. Geetha Tools, v. The Manager

Telangana HC10 Jun 2010WP/13024/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a possession notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner failed to show legal grounds for interference, claimed mere financial difficulties, and wrongly arrayed the bank manager as the respondent instead of the bank itself.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the stage of admission; no order as to costs.

M/s. Geetha Tools, Vs The Manager — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶4

W.P.NO. 13024 of 2010

¶5

10-06-2010

¶6

BETWEEN;

¶7

M/s Geeth Tools, rep. by its E.P Subhdra

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Hyderabad

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶15

W.P.NO.13024 of 2010

¶16

ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J)

¶17

The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner (an undisclosed lega entity, unclear whether it is company, a firm or a society) admittedl obtained the cash credit facility of Rs.10 lakhs from the Allahabad bank Hyderabad branch in 2006 and defaulted in repayment of the instalments The loan account No.CC.168 was classified as a non performing asse (NPA) and the secured creditor initiated proceedings under the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets an Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002( for short “the Securitisation Act and issued a notice on 19.01.2010 under Section 13(2) demanding th outstanding liability of Rs.10,22,937/-. The petitioner by a representatio

¶18

dated 11-02-2010 merely expressed its inability to pay the amount in view of reverses in its business, economic recession in 2008 and othe organisational constraints. However, by a possession notice dated 31-05 2010, the secured creditor intimated that possession of the secured asse will be obtained, on the specified date.

¶19

The singular ground of challenge to the proceedings including th possession notice dated 31-05-2010 is that the petitioner was in financia difficulties and could not repay the amount; that its economic position ha now improved and it is in a position to service the debt if instalments ar granted. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner failed to implead th secured creditor- the Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Hyderabad but ha instead arrayed as a respondent-the Manager, Allahabad Bank Hyderabad. The proper and necessary parties therefore not impleaded.

¶20

In any view of the matter, as no legal grounds are made out fo interference under Article 226 of the Constitution nor is any attempt mad by the petitioner to establish infirmity in the proceedings initiated under th provisions of the Securitisation Act, this court discerns no justification fo interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are n merits.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs.

______________

GODA RAGHURAM,J

______________

NOUSHAD ALI,J

10^th JUNE 2010 TSNR

M/s. Geetha Tools, v. The Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Geetha Tools, v. The Manager

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

M/s. Hezen Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

M/s. Hezen Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/s Reliance Rubber Products

G.Prabhakar Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Shapurnagar Branch

M/s Dart Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/s. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd, Vs The Union Of India