Dismissed

M/s.Ksr Properties Private Limited v. The Authorised Officer

Telangana HC20 Jan 2014WP/33551/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.33551 of 2013, Justice Rohini disposed of the petition filed by M/s. KSR Properties challenging a demand notice under the SARFAESI Act. Noting partial payment compliance but emphasizing the availability of appeal under Section 17, the Court dismissed the writ without expressing opinions on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of granting liberty to pursue remedy of appeal under Section 17; no costs.

M/s.Ksr Properties Private Limited Vs The Authorised… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.33551 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 20.01.2014

¶5

Between: M/s. KSR Properties Private Limited .. Petitioner And The Authorised Officer, UCO Bank, Zonal office, Vijayawada and another

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.33551 OF 2013

¶10

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’).

¶12

Though a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, having regard to the fact that the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 22.11.2013 before this Court undertaking to pay the amounts due to the respondent Bank as per the schedule specified therein namely Rs.15,00,000/- by 27.11.2013 and a further sum of Rs.35,00,000/- by 30.11.2013, this Court by order dated 29.11.2013 directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner and adjourned the matter to 3.12.2013.

¶13

On 4.12.2013 it was represented by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid in terms of undertaking dated 22.11.2013. Recording the said statement, the matter was adjourned to 31.12.2013 so as to enable the petitioner to make the further payments as per the schedule specified in its undertaking dated 22.11.2013.

¶14

Thereafter the matter underwent several adjournments to enable the counsel for the petitioner for reporting compliance with the undertaking dated 22.11.2013. However it is represented by the

¶15

learned counsel for the respondents that except the above said sum of Rs.50 Lakhs, no further payments were made by the petitioner. The said fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

Under the circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to keep the writ petition pending any longer.

¶17

At any rate, as expressed above, since an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal for redressal of its grievance, if any. No costs.

¶19

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶20

______________

¶21

G.ROHINI, J

¶22

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶23

Date: 20.01.2014 Ivd

M/s.Ksr Properties Private Limited v. The Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ksr Properties Private Limited v. The Authorised Officer

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

Mr.a.Krishna Reddy, Vs The Authorised Officer

Ragidi Laxma Reddy, Vs Hdfc Bank

Smt. G.Prabhavathi, W/o Srinivas Vs Smt. Boyini Sarojini Dasaradha Ram

M/s. Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Paper Mills Ltd.v.C.Rajamundry. Vs S.R.Sales Tax App.Tribunal.Hyd.

A.P.Paper Mills Ltd. Rajahmudnry Vs S.T.A.T. Hyd