Allowed

Mother Theresa Educational Society v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC28 Oct 2013WP/14550/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions challenging Tribunal orders regarding possession proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Due to the petitioner's substantial payment, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing with an interim stay of possession proceedings upon deposit of a further sum.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Debts Recovery Tribunal for fresh hearing; interim stay of further possession proceedings granted conditionally.

Mother Theresa Educational Society Vs State Bank… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.14549 and 14550 of 2013

¶3

Date: 28.10.2013

¶4

W.P.No.14549 of 2013 :

¶5

Between : Mother Theresa Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary cum Correspondent Smt. Naga Venkata Lakshmi. … Petitioner And State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, A.S. Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents

¶6

W.P.No.14550 of 2013 : Between : Mother Theresa Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary cum Correspondent Smt. Naga Venkata Lakshmi. … Petitioner And State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, A.S. Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.14549 and 14550 of 2013

¶9

COMMON ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini)

¶10

Aggrieved by the possession notice dated 30.01.2012 issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the Act”) by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner has preferred S.A.No.521 of 2012 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner sought stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Possession Notice dated 30.01.2012. The Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2012 granted stay of all further proceedings, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.40 Lakhs within eight weeks, failing which the respondent Bank it at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶11

However, the petitioner could deposit only Rs.14 Lakhs within the time granted by the Tribunal, and therefore in terms of the default clause incorporated in the order dated 19.06.2012, the respondent Bank proceeded further and filed an application under Section 14 of the Act. Consequently, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for taking possession of the secured assets and a notice to that effect has been served on the petitioner by the Advocate Commissioner on 09.04.2013. Then the petitioner moved applications being I.A.Nos.1288 and 1289 of 2013 in S.A.No.521 of 2012 praying the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer in the appeal in view of the subsequent events and to grant stay of execution of the warrant issued by the Advocate Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the said applications by

¶12

common order dated 03.05.2013 and aggrieved by the same, these two writ petitions are filed.

¶13

We have heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri G. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

¶14

It is to be noticed that this Court while ordering notice to the respondent granted interim stay by order dated 08.05.2013 on condition of the petitioner paying half of the balance amount payable in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2012 within a period of two weeks.

¶15

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with the said order, the petitioner has not only paid half of the balance amount, but also paid a further sum of Rs.48 Lakhs and thus as of today a total sum of about Rs.88 Lakhs (Rupees eighty eight lakhs only) has been paid as against about Rs.2.50 Crores allegedly due as of today.

¶16

As could be seen, the conditional order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal has been complied with by the petitioner though belatedly. That apart, the petitioner has also complied with the conditional order dated 08.05.2013 passed by this Court and a further sum of Rs.48 lakhs was also paid subsequently. Having regard to the admitted fact that substantial amounts have been paid as of today, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal below with a direction to consider the request of the petitioner for stay of all further proceedings till the disposal of S.A. No.521 of 2012.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned common order dated 03.05.2013 is set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the Tribunal below to hear I.A.Nos.1288 and 1289 of 2013 in S.A.No.521 of 2012 afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such orders are passed, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the possession notice dated 30.01.2012,

¶18

subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a further sum of Rs.35 Lakhs (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) within a period of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.

¶19

Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶21

_______________________________ JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY Dt. 28.10.2013. Msr

¶22

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶23

WRIT PETITION Nos.14549 and 14550 of 2013

¶24

28.10.2013

¶25

(Msr)

Mother Theresa Educational Society v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mother Theresa Educational Society 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner (Ct) Legal

M/S.Choudhary Brothers Hyderabad Vs State of Ap and Others

Vxxxx Vs Xxxxx

Mother Theresa Educational Society Vs State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager

M/s.Sushee Infra Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Sushee Infra Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad.