Allowed

Koyi Kishore Babu v. The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank

Telangana HC31 Dec 2014WP/40789/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging refusal to accept decretal amount under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court directed petitioners to pay the due bank amount within four weeks and stayed further SARFAESI proceedings, disposing of the case upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay the entire due amount to the Bank within four weeks and a stay on further SARFAESI proceedings during this period.

Koyi Kishore Babu Vs The Authorized Officer… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.40789 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in refusing to receive from the petitioners the decretal amount covered by the decree in O.S.No.47 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in spite of the representation, dated 01.12.2014, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”), and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to receive the decretal amount due as on date with interest and costs covered by the said decree from the petitioners and record full satisfaction of the decree.

¶6

2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of property to an extent of Ac.2.25 cents out of Ac.3.68 cents covered by D.No.254 of Angalakuduru Village of Tenali Mandal, Guntur District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 12.04.1993, from its rightful owner – Mannava Tirupatamma, the mother of respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1 conveyed an extent of Ac.1.00 cents of land out of his purchased property in the name of petitioner No.2, who is none other than his sister, out of love and affection under a registered gift deed, dated 24.03.2006, and put her in possession of the same. Ever since the said gift, petitioner No.2 has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of her Ac.1.00 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.1.25 cents is in possession and enjoyment of petitioner No.1. While so, a suit in O.S.No.47 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali was filed by respondent No.2 for

¶7

recovery of amount due under a mortgage said to have been created by respondent No.3 for the above property and the same was decreed on 13.11.2006 in favour of respondent No.2 Bank. Respondent No.3 has no right, title or interest in the said property, but created an equitable mortgage in favour of respondent No.2 and obtained loan for M/s.Vivek Vardhini Ice Industries, being its Proprietor. Respondent No.2 filed E.P.No.150 of 2007 in O.S.No.47 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali for realisation of the decretal amount by way of sale of the property purchased by the petitioners. The petitioners filed E.A.No.205 of 2010 in the said Execution Petition claiming that the said property belongs to them and sought for declaration that respondent No.3 has no right or title over the said property and the same are pending. Respondent No.2 invoked the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and respondent No.1 got published a sale publication notice on 03.11.2014 in Eenadu Telugu Daily, Guntur Edition wherein it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.13,38,421/- with interest and costs was due and the property is being brought to sale. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not issue any notice contemplated under Section 13(2) or 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners made a representation, dated 01.12.2014, seeking permission to deposit the amount due but in vain. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are ready to pay the entire amount due to the respondent Bank if four weeks’ time is granted to them.

¶9

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank opposed the same and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶10

5. The respondent Bank is interested only to recover the entire amount due. As the petitioners came forward to discharge the entire outstanding amount to the bank, reasonable time can be granted to

¶11

enable the petitioners to pay the entire amount due to the Bank. Therefore, we direct the petitioners to pay the entire due amount to the Bank within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, no further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act shall be taken up by the Bank. If the above condition is not complied with by the petitioners, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further for realisation of the amount due to the Bank in accordance with the provisions under the SARFAESI Act. Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking “Extension of Time” or “For being mentioned” 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 Date: 31.12.2014 AMD

¶15

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

¶16

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.40789 OF 2014

¶18

DATE: 31.12.2014

¶19

AMD

Koyi Kishore Babu v. The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koyi Kishore Babu v. The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank

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

Chavali Padmavathi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The General Manager, Hqrs.Office, Vs T.v.Giriprasad Rao

The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary Vs D.Satti babu, S/o.D.Sanyasi Rao

Kothapalli Anjaneyulu Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

The Anakapally Divisional Postal Ed Employees Cooperative Vs The Union of India, rep by Secretary and Director-

The Anakapalle Division Postal Employees Cooperative Vs The Union of India represented by the Secretary and