Partly allowed

P.Meenakshmma, v. The Union Bank of India

Telangana HC20 Aug 2014WP/23789/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner a reasonable time to repay the bank's dues, preventing immediate dispossession of the mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner was directed to pay 50% within six weeks, with the balance payable within the subsequent six weeks; failure would result in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay 50% of loan within six weeks and balance within subsequent six weeks; Bank directed not to sell property pending payment.

P.Meenakshmma, Vs The Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.23789 OF 2014 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

20-08-2014

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.23789 OF 2014

¶7

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶8

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent/Bank authorities in trying to take physical possession of the petitioner’s house bearing D.No.45/142-13-B2, Prem Nagar, Kurnool as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the said house in pursuance of the order dated 21-07-2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool in Criminal M.P. No.91 of 2014.

¶9

2. When the petitioner became defaulter in payment of loan taken from the Bank, the loan account of the petitioner was declared as non-performing asset. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”) have been initiated by the Bank authorities. Similarly, they filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the property before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool, whereby the learned Magistrate appointed one Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property put as security for availment of the loan and directed him to file report by 21-08-2014. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner

¶11

is ready to pay the entire due amount to the Respondent/Bank if a reasonable time is granted to him.

¶12

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent/Bank opposed the same and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶13

5. The Respondent/Bank is interested only to recover the entire due amount. When the petitioner is ready to clear the entire due amount to the Bank, there is no meaning in bringing the mortgaged property to sale. In these circumstances, we feel that reasonable time can be granted to enable the petitioner to pay the entire amount due to the Bank. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay 50% of the loan amount to the Bank within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the remaining amount within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Till then, the Respondent/Bank is directed not to proceed with the sale of the property. If anyone of the above conditions is not fulfilled by the petitioner, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking “Extension of Time” or “For being mentioned” in this regard.

¶14

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

(JUSTICE K.C.BHANU)

¶16

(JUSTICE ANIS)

¶17

Date: 20.08.2014

¶18

SKMR

P.Meenakshmma, v. The Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Meenakshmma, v. The Union 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. Jayalakshmi Products, Vs The I.D.B.I. Bank, Bhimavaram Branch

N. Vasantha, Vs The State Bank of India

Sri Mahanandeeswara Educational Society Having its Vs Union of India

N.Venkateswar Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Waheed Vs Bank of Baroda, Arm Branch

Govt of a.P., Vs B.Shiva Kumar