Disposed

Koneru Anand v. Government of India

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/27903/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging Section 8(6) notices under SIE Rules, 2002. Court granted six weeks for 50% deposit and subsequent payment. Failure to comply would allow bank to proceed with auction.

What did the court decide?

Deposit of 50% of outstanding amount within six weeks and remainder within further six weeks; otherwise bank may proceed with auction.

Koneru Anand Vs Government of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.27903 AND 27917 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

Both the Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed to declare the notice Nos.RO:CRLD:1565/14 and RO:CRLD:1482/14, respectively, dated 25.08.2014 issued under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Rules’), by the 2^nd respondent without considering and disposing of the representations, dated 15.05.2014 and 01.01.2014 respectively as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.

¶5

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions stated that if reasonable time i.e., three months, is granted, petitioners would ready to pay the entire outstanding amount due to the bank.

¶6

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents bank opposed to grant time and stated that earlier petitioners undertook to pay the outstanding due amount within nine months, but they had not paid same and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶7

4. Outstanding amount due to the bank in both the writ petitions is Rs.70,15,502/- and Rs.24,01,366/- respectively. In view of the fact that these are only notices under Section 8(6) of the Rules calling upon the borrowers to pay the entire amount within a period of thirty (30) days, we can extend the period of time by granting a reasonable time to enable the petitioners to pay the

¶8

outstanding amount due to the bank.

¶9

5. Considering these aspects, we direct the petitioners in both the writ petitions to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount due to the bank in both the writ petitions within a period of six (06) weeks from today and remaining outstanding amount within a further period of six (06) weeks thereafter. If the petitioners failed to fulfil any one of the conditions as mentioned above, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder in conducting the auction for recovery of amount due to the bank. Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking ‘extension of time’ or ‘for being mention’ petition in this regard.

¶10

7. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶11

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶12

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

Date:18.09.2014 INL

Koneru Anand v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koneru Anand v. Government 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

Y.Rajasekhar Reddy.Medak. Vs D.R.Ordnance Factories BOARD.KOLKOTA.AND1

P.B.K. Murthy Vs Ministry of Railways

Smt. Dornala Vidya Praveena, Vs The Honorable Consumer Disputes Redressal

C.Seetharamaiah Vs The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I)

Ellina Prasantakumar , Raja Vs Smt. Pasumarthy Venkataramana

Deputy Executive Engineer, Vs Naram Nukaraju