Disposed

M/s Sree Harsheetha Granites, v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC17 Oct 2014WP/31242/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an auction notice issued by a bank under the SARFAESI Act, the Court accepted the petitioner's unconditional offer to pay. It directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount within four weeks and the balance within six weeks. The scheduled auction was allowed to proceed, but the sale was not to be confirmed. The petition was disposed of with these

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit 50% of dues within 4 weeks and balance within 6 weeks; auction sale not to be confirmed.

M/s Sree Harsheetha Granites, Vs The State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.31242 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing auction notice, dated 18.09.2014, published in Sakshi Daily Telugu News Paper (Anantapur District Edition), as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, set aside the same.

¶6

2. Petitioner No.2 borrowed an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs for running Petitioner No.1-company. Due to slump in the market, he could not pay the instalments after April, 2013. Therefore, his account was declared as ‘NonPerforming Asset (NPA) and thereafter, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

¶7

(for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and notices under Section 13 (2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act have been issued. As petitioner No.2 failed to pay the amount, auction notice was issued to auction the mortgaged property on 21.10.2014. Challenging the said auction notice, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶8

3. Heard both sides.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 has taken loan in the year 2012 and till April, 2013 he paid the installments as agreed; that due to slump in the market, petitioner No.2 could not pay the instalments; that if reasonable time is granted to petitioner No.2, he is ready and willing to discharge the entire outstanding loan amount due to the Bank.

¶10

5. Petitioner No.2 seems to be a genuine borrower and due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments. Therefore, we accept the unconditional offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even the respondent bank is interested only to recover the debt due. In the first instance, petitioner No.2 shall deposit 50% of the outstanding loan amount within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and remaining amount within six (6) weeks thereafter. If petitioner No.2 fails to comply with any of the

¶11

conditions as stated above, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in conducting auction of the mortgaged property. Auction, which is scheduled to be held on 21.10.2014, may go on, but sale shall not be confirmed. Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking ‘extension of time’ or ‘for being mention’ petition in this regard.

¶12

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.

¶13

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶14

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

OCTOBER 17, 2014 YVL

¶16

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

¶17

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.31242 OF 2014

¶19

DATE:17.10.2014

¶20

YVL

M/s Sree Harsheetha Granites, v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sree Harsheetha Granites, v. The 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

V.Prabhakar Vs Sec.Transport Roads and Buildingsandanoth

K. Yadagiri Vs The Government of India

Smt. Dr. C.v.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Principal

The Union of India Vs Sri K.Sreekar Babu, S/o K.Bhaskara Rao

D.V.M.K. Prasad, Vs the State of a.P., rep by its

Smt.Chavulapally Vijaya Lakshmi,Vijaya Vs a.Balamani