Allowed

Smt. Koya Sharmila, v. Bank of Maharashtra

Telangana HC20 Jan 2016WP/40420/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the bank's refusal to extend the loan repayment deadline. The court observed that the petitioner had cleared a substantial portion of the debt. Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition by granting an extended deadline for payment of both the principal amount and accrued interest, allowing the petitioner to clear the loan in installments by March 2016.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay Rs. 10,00,000 by end of January 2016 and balance amount with interest by end of March 2016.

Smt. Koya Sharmila, Vs Bank of Maharashtra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.40420 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Bank.

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent in not considering the request of the petitioner for extension of time for repayment of outstanding amount till the end of March, 2016, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

Petitioner has availed term loan of Rs.70,00,000/from the respondent – Bank and has committed default in repaying the same. Therefore, the respondent – Bank has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) and has issued Demand Notice, under Section 13 (2) of the Act, showing Rs.40,34,677.78 ps. as outstanding amount as on 30.09.2015. Thereafter, though the petitioner has paid further amounts and requested time till the end of March, 2016 to pay the balance amount, by letter, dated 20.10.2015, the respondent – Bank has directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount on or before 12.12.2015.

¶7

During the course of hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for respondent – Bank that as on 15.12.2015, the amount due was Rs.33,05,534.33 ps..

¶8

As the petitioner has already cleared substantial portion of the loan and having regard to the request made by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by permitting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) by the end of January, 2016 and the balance amount of

¶9

Rs.23,05,534.33 ps. with further accrued interest by the end of March, 2016. It is made clear that if any default is committed in paying the installments as referred to above, it is open to the respondent – Bank to take further steps in accordance with law.

¶10

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J January 20, 2016 MD

Smt. Koya Sharmila, v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Koya Sharmila, v. Bank of Maharashtra

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. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Vs M/s. Bank of Baroda

Barigala Kotesh, Vs The District Collector and

Marri Sai Sree Vs v.S.R.Anjaneyulu

Unnava Bulleiah, Son of Unnava Seetharamaiah Vs M/S Uco Bank

Sri Rama Enterprises Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s. Kankayakaparameshwari Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.