Disposed

Mangalarapu Sayanna, v. The Telangana Grameena Bank

Telangana HC4 Jan 2016WP/42669/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court permitted the petitioner to pay Rs.76,000/- within four weeks to regularize the loan account, reserving further action if unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay Rs.76,000/- within four weeks to regularize the loan account.

Mangalarapu Sayanna, Vs The Telangana… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.42669 of 2015

¶3

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the Sale Notice dated 03.12.2015 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SARFAESI Act”) by the respondent-Bank proposing to sell the secured asset bearing House No.1-4-64/1, constructed in an extent of 244.44 square yards ((240.38 square yards) in Plot No.5 in Sy.No.1694, Priya Darshini Nagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

2. Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after issuing demand notice dated 04.08.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, apart from monthly instalments, though the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- on different spells, in the impugned Sale Notice dated 03.12.2015, a sum of Rs.12,08,030/- has been shown as the outstanding amount due.

¶6

3. On the other hand, Sri K. Jagadish, counsel representing Sri S. Mujeeb Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, submits that if the petitioner is willing to pay an amount of Rs.76,000/- towards arrears of instalments, the respondent-Bank is prepared to regularize the loan account of the petitioner.

¶7

4. In view of the said submission, without going into the

¶8

validity of the impugned Sale Notice dated 03.12.2015, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.76,000/- (Rupees seventy six thousand only) within a period of four weeks from today. On such payment, the respondent-Bank shall regularize the loan account of the petitioner. It is made clear that if such amount is not paid within the said stipulated period, it is open for the respondent-Bank to take further steps in accordance with law.

¶9

5. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶10

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 04.01.2016.

¶12

NOTE: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr

¶13

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

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.42669 of 2015

¶15

04.01.2016 Msr

Mangalarapu Sayanna, v. The Telangana Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalarapu Sayanna, v. The Telangana Grameena Bank

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

Vallu Sowjanya, Vs Andhra Bank

M/s. Asian Builders and Developers Vs Boppana Seshagiri Rao

Rishicon Traders Vs Canara Bank

M.Vindhya Sri, W/o Sridhar, Vs The Bank of India

B .Chinna Subba Reddy alias Krishna Subba Reddy Vs The Lok Adalat Bench, at Kurnool

D.Ramesh Goud, Vs The Bank of India