Dismissed

Nandyala Samba Siva Raju, v. The Authorised Officer

Telangana HC12 Mar 2012WP/29218/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged possession action under SARFAESI Act regarding agricultural land. The Court held that a disputed factual question regarding land classification exists, creating an effective alternative remedy under Section 17(1), precluding High Court interference. The writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.

Nandyala Samba Siva Raju, Vs The Authorised Officer — 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.29218 of 2011

¶3

Dated:12.03.2012

¶4

Between: Nandyala Samba Siva Raju.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

And The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Pippara, West Godavari District.

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.29218 of 2011

¶10

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶11

The petitioner availed term loan, cash credit and other types of loans to a tune of about Rs.35.00 lakhs from the respondent for its business, namely, M/s.Mounica Poultries. The petitioner and his wife mortgaged five items of immovable property i.e., lands comprised in various survey numbers of Saripalli and Chebrolukhandrika Villages. When the repayment of loan became irregular, the bank declared it as non-performing asset and issued

¶12

demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act). In the said notice, dated 27.06.2011, the respondent requested the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs.33,40,229/- within a period of sixty days, failing which, it was informed that necessary action would be taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. As the petitioner did not pay the amount, the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, was issued informing that symbolic possession of the property was taken on 16.09.2011. The same was published in the newspaper on 21.09.2011, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

¶13

The only ground urged in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition as well as during the arguments is that the land mortgaged by the petitioner and his wife being agricultural land, the same shall stand exempted under Section 31(i) of the Act. This is, however, disputed by the Counsel for the respondent bank. He invites the attention of this Court to the remarks/clarification at the end of the demand notice dated 27.06.2011 which shows that the total extent of Acs.5.31½ cents as described in the schedule ‘C’ to the notice was mortgaged and the entire land is shown as poultry shed. Thus, there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the security interest created is only in respect of agricultural land or in respect of poultry shed constructed on the land. It is a matter which can as well be agitated by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the Act before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, it is well settled that in view of the effective alternative remedy available under Section 17(1) of the Act when a bank initiates action under the Act, ordinarily the

¶14

High Court would not interfere in the matter (Transcore v Union of [1] [2] Indi a , Indian Overseas Bank v Ashok Saw Mil l , United Bank of [3] India v Satyawati Tondo n and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v State

¶15

of Maharashtr a^[4] ) .

¶16

The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶18

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶19

12.03.2012 vs

¶20

[1] (2008) 1 SCC 125 : 2007 (3) SCJ 201 [2] (2009) 8 SCC 366 : 2009 (8) SCJ 979 [3] (2010) 8 SCC 110 : AIR 2010 SC 311 [4] (2011) 2 SCC 782 : 2011 (8) SCJ 484

Nandyala Samba Siva Raju, v. The Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandyala Samba Siva Raju, v. The Authorised Officer

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

K.Sahaja Rao, Vs The State Bank of India

M.V. Rama Rao S/o late Sri kasi Vishwanatham, Vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

M/s. Vasavi Fancy Cloth Store, Vs The Authorised Officer and Asst. General Manager

Sri. Bolla Sri Rama Veera Venkata Satya PRasad Vs Authorized Officer

Khalil Baig Vs The District Collector

Nallamalli Sitharamareddy Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce