Disposed

Tadikonda Sundara Ramaiah, v. Bank of India

Telangana HC27 Oct 2014WP/32060/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's notice on disputed property. It directed the bank to suspend confirming the auction sale pending the petitioner's payment of 50% of the outstanding amount and interest within four weeks, with the balance due in the next four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The bank directed not to confirm the sale; petitioner allowed four weeks to pay 50% of dues plus interest, balance in next four weeks.

Tadikonda Sundara Ramaiah, Vs Bank 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 No.32060 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the action of the respondent in issuing the notice, dated 30.09.2014 in respect of the petitioner’s property i.e., all that the open site in an extent of 339 square yards situated in Sy.No.468/4 bearing Door No.111/A, Balusupalem Road, Arumbaka Sivaru, Near S.T. Colony, Cherukupalli Panchayat and Mandal, Guntur District as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

2. The petitioner borrowed certain amounts and when he failed to discharge the amount due to the bank, his loan was declared as Non-Performing Asset. Proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and the property under E-auction was brought to sale fixing the value of the property at Rs.13,56,000/-. One bidder participated in the auction. Thereupon, the bank vide proceedings Ref.No.CRP:ADV:4-15-25, dated 30.09.2014, directed the petitioner to pay the entire loan amount with up to date interest and other charges on or before 14.10.2014, failing which, on 15.10.2014 sale certificate will be issued in favour of the participated bidder and the property will be transferred in his name.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to discharge the entire loan amount if reasonable time is granted.

¶7

4. Market value of the property, according to the petitioner, is about Rs.70,00,000/- and the amount due to the bank is only Rs.4,02,000/-. Since the bank is also interested to recover the entire amount due to the bank, reasonable time can be granted to the petitioner to enable him to pay the said amount.

¶8

5. Considering the fact that only one bidder has participated in the auction, we direct the respondent bank not to confirm the sale till the following direction is complied with by the petitioner:

¶9

The petitioner shall pay 50% of the outstanding loan amount with interest

¶10

and other charges as on today within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay the remaining balance amount within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. If the petitioner fails to fulfil any one of the two conditions as mentioned above, sale can be confirmed and the sale certificate can also be issued to the auction purchaser. Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking ‘extension of time’ or ‘for being mentioned’ in this regard.

¶11

6. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondent bank, no notice is required to it.

¶12

7. Accordingly, 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

Date:27.10.2014 INL

Tadikonda Sundara Ramaiah, v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadikonda Sundara Ramaiah, v. 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

Kakula Aruna Jyothi Vs State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager/ Authorized

Sri.S.Srinivas Reddy, Vs Union of India

Doddi Simhachalam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.S.D.M.B.G.Tilak Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

M/s M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited Vs M/S. Surendra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

K.V.K. Ramabrahmam, Vs Gundu Appa Rao