Dismissed

Adam Bakers, v. Syndicate Bank

Telangana HC9 Jul 2019WP/13925/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging the respondent bank's failure to pass orders on a petitioner's representation for extending loan repayment time. The Court held that without complying with the procedure under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner had no cause of action to approach the court at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking a direction to extend the time for repayment was dismissed as there was no cause of action as the statutory mandate under Section 13(3A) had not been complied with

Adam Bakers, Vs Syndicate Bank — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13925 of 2019

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

The prayer of the petitioner in this case reads as under:-

¶5

“… to issue a order a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not passing any orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 31.5.2019 for extending the time for repayment of the amount as illegal, arbitrary and violative of all principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to extend the time for a period of six months’ time to repay the due amount and pass appropriate orders and other orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Perusal of the record reflects that the respondent Syndicate Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, only on 09.5.2019 quantifying the dues payable by the petitioner at Rs.25,01,362.61 paise and calling upon it to clear the said dues within 60 days. The petitioner submitted its response thereto, vide representation dated 31.5.2019, seeking six more months’ time to clear the outstanding dues. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the respondent bank in not passing orders on the said representation.

¶7

Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, provides that if, upon receipt of the demand notice under Section 13 (2), the borrower makes a representation, the secured creditor shall consider the same and in the event the said

¶8

SK, J & PKR, J W.P.No.13925 of 2019 Dt:09.7.2019

¶9

¶10

representation is found to be unacceptable, the secured creditor is required to communicate, within 15 days of receipt of such representation, the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation to the borrower.

¶11

In the light of this statutory mandate and the settled legal position that without abiding by the procedure prescribed under the aforestated provision, the secured creditor cannot proceed further, we find no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. In the event the secured creditor fails to abide by the statutory mandate, it would have to face the consequences. We need say no more.

¶12

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶13

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO

¶15

09^th July, 2019 dr

Adam Bakers, v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adam Bakers, v. Syndicate 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.Canara Bank Vs Union of India

M/s. Sls Properties, Vs M/s. Reliance Cellulose Products Limited

M/s.Canara Bank Vs Union of India

M/s Cura Technologies Limited Vs Union of India

M/s S v Developers Vs State Bank of India

Mantena Srinivasa Subrmanyam Raju Vs Authorized Officer