Dismissed

Kandlakunta Rajamohan v. Uco Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012WP/24582/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the appropriate remedy lay before the appropriate forum, granting liberty to the petitioners to respond to the notice or file a representation under Section 13(3A) rather than adjudicating the merit of the notice itself.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file a reply to the notice or make a representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act.

Kandlakunta Rajamohan Vs Uco Bank, rep. by its… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.24582 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:8.8.2012

¶4

Between: Kandlakunta Rajamohan and another … Petitioners

¶5

And UCO Bank, rep. by its Authorized Officer Surya Nagar 8-1-21, Plot No.150/A NSR Complex Suryanagar, Tolichowki Hyderabad … Respondent

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.24582 OF 2012

¶8

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

¶9

This writ petition is filed to declare the notice dt.14.5.2012 issued by respondent – Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), as arbitrary and illegal, and for consequential directions.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

It appears that only the notification dt.14.5.2012 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued in the matter by the respondent – Bank against the petitioners, which was statedly received by them on 13.7.2012. We do not think that this Court can pass any order in this matter in favour of the petitioners at this stage, since, in our opinion, they have to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. The petitioners may file a reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act or may file a representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in the matter, if so advised.

¶12

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶13

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶14

8.8.2012 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J bnr

Kandlakunta Rajamohan v. Uco Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandlakunta Rajamohan v. Uco Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer

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

K. Prabhaker Sharma Vs The District Collector and Magistrate

Jai Bheem Karmika Sankshema Sangham, Vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dr. T.E. Kasturi

Abida Begum, Vs The Director General of Police

Siri Microfin Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bole Chinna Subba Rao, Vs The District Collector