Disposed

T.L.N. Anjana Devi, v. Andhra Bank

Telangana HC12 Sept 2018WP/23661/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of a SARFAESI notice. It granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act within four weeks to file objections, while the existing interim stay continued.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach 1st respondent under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act within four weeks.

T.L.N. Anjana Devi, Vs Andhra Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.23661 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing Notice dated 29.08.2008 under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI” Act) to the 3^rd respondent against the property bearing Municipal No.11/138/D4 (New No.11/138/49) Medhar Bazar, Eluru Road, Gudivada, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said notice.

¶5

1. Heard both sides.

¶6

While admitting the writ petition, this Court on 18.12.2008 passed an

¶7

order in W.P.M.P.No.30854/2008 as follows:

¶8

“There shall be interim stay of Notice dated 29.08.2008, subject to the petitioner depositing half of the amount due to the Bank within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶9

Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that since the impugned notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioner got a remedy under Section 13(3A) of the Act to make a representation or submit his objection against the impugned notice before the 1^st respondent and without taking recourse of the same, the petitioner approached the Court and obtained interim order and requested the Court to direct the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that if time is granted, the petitioner would approach the concerned authority under Section 13(3A) of the Act.

¶12

In view of the above respective submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the writ petitioner to take recourse under Section 13(3A) of the Act before the 1^st respondent within four(4) weeks from the date of this order, in which case, the concerned authority of 1^st respondent shall consider his representation/objection and pass an appropriate order on merits within four(4) weeks thereof and till such an order is passed, the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30854/2008 shall continue, provided the petitioner has complied with the direction given in that order. No costs.

¶13

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶14

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶15

Date: 12.09.2018 Note: Issue C.C by 14.09.2018. (b/o) scs

T.L.N. Anjana Devi, v. Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.N. Anjana Devi, v. Andhra 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

M/s Ganesh Medical Agenices, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chilamkur Staff as Workers Union, Vs The Commissioner of Labour

Gudipally Ramulu, Warangal District Vs the Union of India, New Delhi and Another

Smt. K.Krishanaveni Wife Vs Indian Overseas Bank Assets Recovery

Jaigiri Devender Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar, registered trust, Vs The Regional Joint Director of School Education