Disposed

Smt. Sadaram Varalaxmi v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC12 Sept 2012WP/15911/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acting Chief Justice Ghose, allowing status quo for four weeks in a writ petition challenging the bank's initiation of SARSFESI Act proceedings and attempted dispossession without due process, noted possible settlement and disposed of the petition with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained for four weeks; petitioners at liberty to take steps in accordance with law; writ petition disposed of.

Smt. Sadaram Varalaxmi Vs The State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.15911 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:12.9.2012

¶5

Between: Smt. Sadaram Varalaxmi and another … Petitioners And The State Bank of India Rep. by its Manager Industrial Estate Branch Visakhapatnam … Respondent

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.15911 OF 2012

¶9

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶10

This writ petition is filed inter alia to declare the action of the respondent bank in initiating proceedings for delivery of security asset in question from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.M.P. No.1116 of 2012, dt.22.3.2012, served on 19.5.2012 and the attempt to disposes the petitioners on 19.5.2012 without following due process of law under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’), as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions.

¶11

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent bank, suppressing certain facts and orders of this Court, obtained delivery warrant of the secured asset in question, from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, vide order dt.22.3.2012 in Crl.M.P. No.1116 of 2012, and attempted to dispossess them, without following due process of law.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, we direct that the status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period of four weeks. Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take steps in the matter in accordance with law.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is a

¶14

possibility of settlement of the matter out of Court. If that is so, we make it clear that the order of status quo shall not stand in the way of the parties.

¶15

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶17

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 12.9.2012 bnr

Smt. Sadaram Varalaxmi v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sadaram Varalaxmi v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hmt Bearings Ltd. Vs Syndicate Bank, Represented by the Authorised Officer

B. Srinivasulu Vs The Principal Secretary

M/s.Sumathi Traders, Vs The Commissioner

P. Madhusudhan Vs P. Sreedevi

M Sujatha Vs Smt. G Suneethamma

Smt M.Rizwana Khathnoon, Vs S.K.Khairun Bee