Dismissed

M/s. Krishna Priya Cements Private Limited, v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012WP/22767/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner company filed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Ordinance and Sections 13, 17, and 34 thereof. The court dismissed the writ as infructuous as the Ordinance was superseded by the SARFAESI Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court except for Section 17(2).

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.22767 of 2003 and W.P.M.P. dismissed. No order as to costs.

M/s. Krishna Priya Cements Private Limited, Vs State… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22767 of 2003

¶3

Dated:03.02.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s.Krishna Priya Cements Private Limited.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And State Bank of India, And another.

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.22767 of 2003

¶12

ORDER OF THE COURT

¶13

The petitioner company availed credit facility from the first respondent. As there is a default in payment of the loan instalment, the first respondent issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance), calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.32,62,958.52 within a period of sixty days, failing which, the petitioner was advised that necessary action would be taken under Section 13(4) of the Ordinance for taking possession and sale of the secured asset. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the notice as well as Sections 13, 17 and 34 of the Ordinance.

¶14

There is no dispute that the impugned Ordinance was subsequently enacted, and therefore, the writ petition itself is infructuous. Be that as it is, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd v Union of India^[1] , except Section 17(2) of the Act which stands declared as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶15

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Accordingly, the W.P.M.P shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶17

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶18

03.02.2012 vs

¶19

[1] (2004) 4 SCC 311 : AIR 2004 SC 2371

M/s. Krishna Priya Cements Private Limited, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Krishna Priya Cements Private Limited, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sri.Mahalaxmi Dall and Flour Mill Vs a.P., Pollution Control Board

K. Varalakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sub-Registrar as Registrar of Chits, Kavadiguda, Vs Kum. v. Leela Chowdary D/o v. Sambasiva rao

Sankara Janaki, Vs State Bank of India, Db Division Main Branch

Prakash Sadre Vs The Chief Manager

K.Venkata Narsimha Reddy, Vs Union of India,rep.by its Secretary