Dismissed

Smt. K. Krishnaveni v. Authorised OFficer

Telangana HC24 Apr 2012WP/7160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an auction notice by a bank under the SFAESA 2002. The court held that aggrieved persons must seek remedy via Section 17(1) applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners were directed to approach the bank for redemption and liberty was given to approach the DRT. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with directions to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the bank for redemption.

Smt. K. Krishnaveni Vs 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.7160 of 2012

¶3

Dated:24.04.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt.K.Krishnaveni, And another.

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

And Authorised Officer, A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Isnapur Branch, Medak District, And another. ... Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.7160 of 2012

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioners – wife and husband – availed loan for purchase of plot and constructed a house. It was mortgaged to the second respondent for securing loan. When the repayment became irregular, the second respondent initiated action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), and issued a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding

¶13

Rs.9,48,243/-. The petitioners statedly paid Rs.1,80,000/- on 31.03.2010 and Rs.60,000/- on 20.04.2010. In spite of the same, possession notice was issued and the premises was locked. The second petitioner then appears to have approached the bank and offered to pay Rs.2,50,000/- and the balance amount by regular instalments through electronic fund transfer. In spite of the same, the second respondent issued the sale – cum – auction notice fixing the reserve price at Rs.11,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in issuing auction notice is arbitrary because the petitioners are willing to pay lump sum amount and the balance in instalments. He would further submit that the petitioners purchased the property for Rs.13,50,000/- in 2007, and fixing the reserve price of Rs.11,00,000/- is arbitrary. He also points out that when the notice of demand was issued for Rs.9,48,243/- loan amount due in the auction notice was shown as Rs.10,68,000/within a period of one year, which is unsustainable.

¶15

This Court ordered notice. Though it is served, none appears for the second respondent.

¶16

We have given anxious consideration to the factual background summed up hereinabove. The submission of the petitioners that after receiving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act they paid Rs.1,80,000/- in March 2010 and Rs.60,000/- in April 2010 are yet to be verified. Secondly, if the petitioners were willing to pay substantial amount towards discharge of the loan, nothing prevents them to file an application under Section 13(8) of the Act to that effect and redeem the mortgaged property. They did not do so. When the auction notice was issued proposing to conduct auction on 16.03.2012, they filed the instant writ petition.

¶17

Further, it is well settled that any person aggrieved against any measures initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act has to seek remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the Act [1] (United Bank of India v Satyawati Tondo n ) . All the points raised are kept open, and liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. This also does not preclude the petitioners from approaching the Andhra Pradesh Grammena Vikas Bank for redeeming the mortgaged property, if auction is not confirmed so far.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶21

24.04.2012 vs

¶22

[1] (2010) 8 SCC 110 : AIR 2010 SC 311

Smt. K. Krishnaveni v. Authorised OFficer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Krishnaveni v. 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

M/s. B.N. Rathi Securities Limited, Vs The A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission

Sri Venkateshwara Educational Society Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Zuari Industries Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

K.Kaleswara Rao Vs Canara Bank, rep.by its Authorized Officer

Nvaduri Satyanarayana Murthy Vs U Srinivasulu

Dr.D.Madhavi Latha Vs Kurnool Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner