The court disposed of a writ petition challenging possession notices under the SARFAESI Act. It permitted the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within six weeks to prevent further steps for asset seizure by the bank.
Petitioner permitted to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within six weeks to restrain the Bank from further steps for possession of secured assets.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.36156 OF 2015
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the Possession Notice, dated 07.03.2013, issued by the respondent – Bank and the warrant issued pursuant to the orders passed in Crl.MP.No.36 of 2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, with regard to the house properties bearing H.Nos.1-3-57 and 3-1-80 situated at Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District.
The impugned Possession Notice and the warrant are issued in exercise of powers conferred under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in view of the default committed by the petitioner in repaying the loan amount to the respondent – Bank.
This Court, by order, dated 16.11.2015, granted interim stay having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and no amount is shown in the impugned Possession Notice.
When the matter is called, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent – Bank that the amount due in the account in question is Rs.2,75,262/- and by giving the properties in question as security, the petitioner has availed housing loan vide another account, in which the amount due is Rs.1,82,602/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner requested time to pay the amount due.
The present proceedings are initiated with regard to the cash credit facility account, but not with regard to the housing loan account. As much as the petitioner has already paid Rs.3,00,000/- and as it is stated that the amount due in the account in question is Rs.2,75,262/, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by permitting the petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) within a period of six (6) weeks from today and the balance amount due within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. On such payment, the respondent – Bank is directed not to take any further steps for taking possession of the secured asset. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time stipulated, it is open to the respondent – Bank to take further steps in the matter.
Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
December 07, 2015
MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition questioning the possession notice can be disposed of by allowing the petitioner to deposit a specific sum within a stipulated time.
Whether the bank is directed to refrain from further steps for taking possession upon the petitioner's compliance with the payment order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
The Respondent – Bank
R. SUBHASH REDDY
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
