Partly allowed

Sangala Israel, v. Authorized Officer, State Bank of India

Telangana HC3 Mar 2014WP/5742/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank notice and the appointment of a commissioner under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the nominated amount immediately to be restrained from dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners restrained from dispossession if they deposit 50% of the demanded amount by April 7, 2014, and the balance 50% with interest and costs by May 6, 2014.

Sangala Israel, Vs Authorized Officer, State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta and The Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy

¶2

Writ Petition No.5742 of 2014

¶3

Dated 03.03.2014

¶4

Order: (per Hon’ble Sri AM, J)

¶5

The petitioners availed housing loan of Rs.3 lakhs from respondent No.2- Bank. They are aggrieved by Notice, dated 18-04-2013, issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’), by which a demand was made by respondent No.2- Bank for payment of Rs.2,48,650/- within 60 days from the date of its issuance. As the petitioners were unable to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, on an application made by respondent No.2- Bank, respondent No.3 was appointed as Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the residential house in question.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the entire amount as demanded by respondent No.2- Bank along with interest and costs in two equal monthly instalments.

¶7

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of this Writ Petition with the direction that the petitioners shall deposit 50% of the amount demanded by respondent No.2Bank vide Notice, dated 18-04-2013 on or before 07-04-2014 and the balance 50% together with interest and costs on or before 06-05-2014. Till then, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the residential house in question. In default on the part of the petitioners to comply with the aforesaid direction, this order shall stand vacated and respondent No.2- Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶8

As a sequel, WPMP.No.7136 of 2014, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶9

____________________

¶10

(Ashutosh Mohunta, J)

¶11

________________________

¶12

(M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)

¶13

3^rd March, 2014 lur

Sangala Israel, v. Authorized Officer, State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangala Israel, v. Authorized Officer, 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

M/s.Telemart Shopping Network Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle

M/s. Bhanu Enterprises, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s Power Mak Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service

Poorna Sai Cotton Syndicate Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s. M.S.R. Minerals Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

State Bank of Hyderabad, Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal