Disposed

Premier Developments, v. State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch

Telangana HC11 Apr 2014WP/9654/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's notice for immediate clearance of dues. Accepting the petitioner's undertaking to pay in installments, the Court directed payment in stages, allowed the bank to initiate SARFAESI proceedings on default, and mandated non-coercive action for ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay 50% within 4 weeks and balance in two installments of 3 weeks each; bank barred from coercive action for 10 weeks; SARFAESI proceedings permissible on default.

Premier Developments, Vs State Bank of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.9654 of 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Premier Developments, # 5-9-101, Park Royale Enclave, Public Garden Roade, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Nawab Behbood Ali Khan.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch at Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager & another

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.9654 of 2014

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The averments of the petitioner affidavit disclose that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the properties bearing Municipal House Nos.5-9-88, 5-9-88/A and 5-9-101, situated at Public Garden Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. For the purpose of developing the property, the petitioner obtained loan from the State Bank of India in the year 2006. Loan was granted and the property was developed. However, the loan amount was not paid by the petitioner and an amount of Rs.55,59,508/- was standing in the loan account due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent bank. By letter, dated 19.03.2014, the 2^nd respondent bank directed the petitioner to clear the loan amount due by 25^th of March, 2014, as full and final settlement. The respondent bank has also waived penal interest of Rs.1,72,531/-. There was a reference to compromise settlement between the petitioner and the respondent bank by which the petitioner agreed to clear the amounts payable before that date. This writ petition is instituted challenging the said order contending that very short time is granted to the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner was informed on 19.03.2014 that there were no dues on the term loan account

¶17

No.30084163328, whereas an amount is arrived at and directed to be paid. The petitioner further contended that he never agreed to pay the amount as demanded. In fact, the petitioner was disputing the quantification of the amount payable by him and the petitioner wanted the details of the account to verify and then settle the amounts payable by him.

¶18

2. The respondent bank filed counter affidavit. It is the assertion of the respondent bank that on 19.03.2014, an understanding was reached between the petitioner and the respondent bank and the petitioner agreed to settle the entire amounts due before 25.03.2014 and because of an undertaking given by the petitioner, the respondent bank restrained from initiating the penal proceedings against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”). Having given an undertaking to settle the account, it is not open to the petitioner to institute the writ petition and assail the order impugned in the writ petition.

¶19

3. At the time of hearing, on instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was initially disputing the amount quantified by the respondent bank, the petitioner has now re-conciled to settlement of the account provided certain time is granted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire amount in three installments. 50% of the amount quantified shall be paid as first installment within four (4) weeks from today and the balance amount in two installments respectively in three (3) weeks each from the lapse of four (4)

¶20

weeks from today.

¶21

4. In view of the said undertaking given by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the entire amount quantified by the respondent bank as agreed. The petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount quantified within four (4) weeks from today and the balance amount in two equitable installments. The second installment shall be paid within three (3) weeks after the payment of first installment and the last installment within three (3) weeks thereafter. The respondent bank is entitled to recover additional cost towards expenditure incurred and the interest payable from 25.03.2014 on the amount quantified. The respondent bank shall furnish the details of such amount quantified to the petitioner and the said amount shall also be paid in the final installment. If the petitioner fails to comply with the time stipulated, it is open to the respondent bank to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above directions, the respondent bank shall not take any coercive steps for a period of ten (10) weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

Date: 11^th April, 2014 KL

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.9654 of 2014

¶26

Date: 11^th April, 2014

¶27

Premier Developments, v. State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premier Developments, v. State Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Adhilakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed Vs Government of A.P.

Inampudi Sri Lakshmi, W/o.I.Koteswara Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kauser Abida, Vs The Union of India

Dr. U. Rama Varma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Rukumini Vs The Territory Manager