Dismissed

M. Gandhi, v. The Bank Manager

Telangana HC1 Nov 2016WP/37075/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a written order dismissing a writ petition filed by a defaulting borrower against a Bank. The petitioner challenged the Bank's threat to recover the entire loan amount without adhering to Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court dismissed the petition due to the vague and unverifiable nature of the petitioner's averments regarding undue pressure.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to declare the Bank's action illegal and direct restraint from harassment was dismissed.

M. Gandhi, Vs The Bank Manager — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 37075 of 2016

¶4

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶5

The petitioner, who borrowed money from the respondent-Bank and who admittedly committed default, has come up with the present writ petition with a very innocuous prayer, which reads as follows:

¶6

“to issue a writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in threatening the petitioner to clear entire loan amount without following due procedure as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violate of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner until disposal of O.A.No.431 of 2016 pending on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Admittedly, the respondent-Bank has filed an application under Section 19 of the 1993 Act and it is pending. The petitioner has stated

¶9

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No.37075 of 2016

¶10

¶11

in his affidavit that the Bank Manager came with his henchmen and pressurized him to refund the money. But, the averments, in this regard, in Paragraph-6 are completely vague. Therefore, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶14

_____________________
G. SHYAM PRASAD, J
1 st November, 2016
cbs

¶15

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No.37075 of 2016

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

Writ Petition No. 37075 of 2016 (Per VRS,J)

¶20

1^st November, 2016

¶21

cbs

M. Gandhi, v. The Bank Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Gandhi, v. The Bank Manager

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

Banoth Balu, Vs The Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare

Ruttala Swathi Vs The State of Telengana

Sri. Penumuru Jayaramaiah, Vs The Union Bank of India

Gaddam Satish Babu Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager

Shaik Abdul Jaleel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Jona, Vs State Bank of India