Disposed

D.Chitti Babu v. Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank

Telangana HC18 Jun 2013WP/15214/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an auction notification under the Securitization Act. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent bank via representation for installment consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the respondent bank by making a representation within two weeks for consideration of installment payment claims.

D.Chitti Babu Vs Repatriates Co-operative Finance and… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.15214 of 2013

BETWEEN

D. Chitti Babu.

…PETITIONER

AND

Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank, Rep. by Authorized Officer, Chittoor District.

¶10

…RESPONDENTS

¶11

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. P. GANGARAMI REDDY

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED--

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶15

This writ petition filed praying as under:

¶16

“…the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Tender / Public auction sale notice issued by the respondent bank as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner for payment of the amount due to the bank in installments and pass such other or further order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶17

2. Writ petitioner questions the auction notification issued under the

¶18

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly submits that the petitioner will make a representation to the respondent – bank to consider his case in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to enable him to settle the loan.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid submission, we dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent – bank by making a representation within a period of two (2) weeks from today. If such representation is made, the respondent – bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶21

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_____________ N. V. RAMANA, J

¶23

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶24

June 18, 2013 DSK

D.Chitti Babu v. Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Chitti Babu v. Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapuram.Gurunath Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Kodanda Rama Minerals, Vs Union of India

Bapuram.Gurunath Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Annapurna, Vs The District Collector-cum-District Coordinator

Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board Vs P. Narayana

Tirumala Hills Residents Welfare Association Vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation