The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's demand notice under the SARFAESI Act. It granted a three-week extension for payment and stayed publication of the petitioner's names upon consent.
Three weeks time granted for payment of 50% of outstanding amount; defendant bank stayed from publishing names and photos.
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 N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.17389 of 2013
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)
Petitioner challenges the demand notice No.MERM/SKLM SH/2013-14/Mitra/01 dated 01.06.2013 issued by the respondent – bank, wherein the respondent – bank demanded to pay the outstanding amount, failing which they would to publish the names and photos of the petitioner – society members in the leading news papers.
We have given notice before admission.
Learned standing counsel for the respondent – bank submits that only for the purpose of recovery of outstanding amount, the said notice was given.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner – society is willing to liquidate the entire liability and they have already paid Rs.30,00,000/- after receipt of notice issued under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’).
Notice dated 03.05.2013 issued by the respondent – bank under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act relates to demand for Rs.4,21,59,000/. After deducting the amount paid by the petitioner, if any, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for which the learned Standing counsel for the respondent – bank agrees, we grant three (3) weeks time to the petitioner for payment of 50% of the outstanding amount and the petitioner – society shall pay the remaining 50% of the outstanding amount within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter, in default the
respondent – bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Since the time is granted on consent of the respondent – bank, they shall not proceed further with regard to publishing of names and photographs of the petitioner – society members. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in the writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
_________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
24th June, 2013 Ksp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to dispose of the writ petition challenging the demand notice issued under the SARFAESI Act threatening publication of names.
Whether to grant time for payment of outstanding dues in lieu of the threatened publication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner – Society
Respondent – Bank
N.V. Ramana
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
