The petitioner, a bank employee facing compulsory retirement, challenged bank proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for default in housing loan instalments. The court dismissed the petition due to failure to comply with interim orders and noted the availability of alternative remedies under the Act.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.686 of 2009
Dated:01.03.2012
Between:
Smt.T.Santha Kumari.
Petitioner
And Indian Overseas Bank, And another.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.686 of 2009
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioner while working as Scale II Officer in Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) availed housing loan of Rs.9,00,000/- duly creating mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of a house plot in Kurnool. In September 2007 in pursuance of disciplinary action, the IOB awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement, against which the petitioner filed W.P.No.23449 of 2008. Be that as it is, as the payment of loan instalments became irregular, the first respondent issued notice of demand dated 11.10.2007 under
Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.9,46,049/- with future interest within sixty days from the date of the said notice. The petitioner sent an application informing that she wants to continue to pay the monthly instalments and requested the Manager of the bank to reschedule the repayment of the housing loan. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued possession notice on 02.02.2008 under Section 13(4) of the Act. Almost a year thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the proceedings under the Act.
This Court while admitting the writ petition on 27.01.2009 passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.853 of 2009 staying all further proceedings on condition of the petitioner depositing the entire arrears as per the terms of the loan within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order.
The Counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner has not paid the instalments regularly and that she also failed to comply with the interim order passed by this Court. In view of this, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Further, against any order or action pursuant to the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 17(1) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of the grievance, if any.
The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
01.03.2012 vs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act can be allowed when the petitioner failed to comply with interim orders.
Whether an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 17(1) of the Act for challenging the possession notice.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt.T.Santha Kumari
Indian Overseas Bank
V.V.S.Rao
G.Krishna Mohan Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
