Disposed

Sarada Cotton Traders, v. The Chief General Manager

Telangana HC22 Feb 2010WP/2071/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court clarified the interim stay on a property auction, permitting deposit of the condition in three instalments. It directed the appellant to file an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as the alternative remedy and disposed of both the writ petition and appeal.

What did the court decide?

Modified interim stay allowing deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs in three equal instalments until 31-03-2010; case disposed of advising appeal under Section 17.

Sarada Cotton Traders, Vs The Chief General Manager — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶3

W.A.No.96 of 2010 & W.P.No.2071 of 2010

¶4

Date of Judgment: 22-02-2010

¶5

CT in W.A.No.96 of 2010

¶6

Between: M/s.Sarada Cotton Traders rep.by its Proprietor Smt. Lekkala Sarada. ..Appellant and

¶7

..Appellant

¶8

1. The Chief General Manager, SBI, Hyderabad and two others.

¶9

The Court made the following Common Judgment:

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶11

W.A.No.96 of 2010 & W.P.No.2071 of 2010

¶12

Common Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy )

¶13

This Writ Appeal is directed against the interim order passed by this Court in WPMP No.2776 of 2010 in W.P.No.2071 of 2010 dated 04-02-2010, whereas the Writ Petition is filed questioning the Tender/Property Auction Notice dated 12-01-2010 issued by the 3^rd respondent—Bank inviting sealed tenders for auctioning the properties notified for due recovery of an amount of Rs.74,51,372.75ps.

¶14

The writ petitioner has not disputed about availing of loan facilities and declaring the accounts as non-performing asset by notice dated 06-122008. As the petitioner failed to comply the demand made by the bank, possessory notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) was issued on 14-02-2009. On issuing the said notice, the petitioner paid considerable amounts periodically from 25-03-2009 till 19-10-2009 amount to Rs.49,50,000/-. The payment of the said amount was not disputed by the 3^rd respondent—Bank, but admits that still a sum of Rs.35 lakhs is due from the petitioner with interest calculated on such amount.

¶15

A learned single Judge of this Court stayed the auction on condition of the petitioner deposits Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 06-03-2010.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner made a request that the writ petitioner may be permitted to deposit the amount of Rs.15 lakhs, as ordered by the learned single Judge, in three equal instalments. The learned

¶17

counsel for the 3^rd respondent—Bank is agreeable to deposit the said amount before the end of March, 2010.

¶18

In view of the same, we modify the interim order as under:

¶19

“There shall be interim stay on condition of the writ petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in three equal instalments; first of such instalment of Rs.5 lakhs shall be made on or before 05-03-2010, second instalment of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 20-03-2010 and the remaining Rs.5 lakhs shall be made on or before 31-03-2010.”

¶20

Further, if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the measures taken by the 3^rd respondent—Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act, it can file appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal within one month from today, if so advised.

¶21

In default of deposit of the amount, as directed above or obtaining necessary orders from the Appellate Tribunal, interim stay, as modified by this Court, shall stand vacated/ceased to operate.

¶22

In view of the effective alternative remedy of appeal is available to the writ petitioner under Section 17 of the Act, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition as well as writ appeal and they are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.

¶23

________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J.

¶24

22-02-2010 Murthy

Sarada Cotton Traders, v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarada Cotton Traders, v. The Chief General 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

D.Rama Subba Reddy Vs R.D.O.(L.a.) Kurnool

C.Sanjeeva Rayudu Sripathiraopeta AND5 Vs R.D.O. (L.a.O) Kurnool

S.Venkata Swamy Vs R.D.O. (L.a.O) Kurnool

G. Appa Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare

K.Subba Rao Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Sarada Cotton Traders, Vs The Chief General Manager