Partly allowed

Sri. Mohd. Yousuf and Another v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC19 Apr 2021WP/10130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, modifying the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order. The court allowed petitioners three days to deposit Rs. 6 lakhs with the respondent bank considering prevailing pandemic conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to deposit Rs. 6 lakhs with respondent bank within three days. Tribunal allowed to proceed in default. Writ petition disposed of without costs.

Sri. Mohd. Yousuf and Another Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR rHE 57 r';;;,J 615, 3j fr.#"",flf A r H^yD E RA BA D

¶2

IUONDAY,IHE A rwo rH o r"lilEll,.Jlf,,?i^{yo F /,eR} rL

¶3

PRESENI

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTI(

¶5

THE HON'BLE "- ,,*H T:;:H:'ff=#"

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:101 30 0F 2021

¶8

1' Sri rvrohd' yousuf-,s/o. r/ohd Khaja, Aged. 62 years, occ. Business, c/o. Akbar Khan, at-oi.-e-il-iiiri,'Y.riiiooriroau, Kachiguda, Hyderabad|[rJlr,"o 2. Smt. Zulekha. W/o. Sri. IVohd. yousuf, Aged. 55 years, Occ. House Wife, C/o. g6"Jo1l*^{AkbarKhin, Fy,} i_i^:Jizi, "riilr botiadda, Kachisuda, Hydera bad_

¶9

AND

¶10

...petitioners/Applicants

¶11

State Bank of lndia. Retair centrar processing centre-Secunderabad-Administrative Office, 3rd Ftoor,^patny Circte, SecunOei;b;;^{-"' '''} "

¶12

...RespondenURespondent

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass order or orders direction more particularly in the nature of writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate writ, order by setting aside the orders of the DRT-Il Hyderabad dated 19/03/202 1 vide IA. No 596/2021 in sA No.64/2021 which are passed in pursuance of the Advocate commissioner notice dated 04/03/2021 in pursuant to the orders passed in Crl.lV.P.No.'1 7 of 2020 passed by the Hon'ble CMM, Hyderabad for taking the Physical Possession of the Application Schedule Property initiated by the respondent bank the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by declaring the orders dated 19-03-2021 vide lA. No.596/2021 in SA No.64/2021 is to be declared as illegal null and void by- directing the respondent bank not to proceed further in taking possession and sale of the property.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated^{in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to stay of all} further proceedings of respondent bank including taking^{physical possessionof the} schedule^property through Advocate Commissioner^{noticedated0410312021in} pursuant to the orders passed in crl.Nil.P.No.l7 ol^{2O2O passed by the Hon'bleclVlM,} Hyderabad by extending the time for^{complianceof the ordersof the DRT-Il} Hyderabad, dated 191312021^{for four weeks.}

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.^{T. VIJAYAKUMAR}

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent:^{SRI PODILA HARI PRASAD}

¶18

The Court mad€ the following:^ORDER

¶19

;

¶20

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A'RAJASHEKERRTDDY} AND HON'BLE^{DR. JUSTICPSHAMEEMAKTHER}

¶21

WRIT^{PETITION No' 10130} of 2021

¶22

oRDER: lper^{Hon'ble Si Justice A'Rajasheker Reddg)}

¶23

This wrlt^{petitionis filed for the following relief;}

¶24

"to pass^{order or orders directionmorepa-rticularly in the nature of} Writ of^M andam,]"^{o. .rry oitr"i app.oiria.te} .writ,^{orderby setting} aside the^{orders of tfre oRi-tt, HyattuUua dated 19 03 2021vide} il.r'r".islliozI^{in SANo 64l202 I which} .-^".^{q1t:t^9in pursuance} "i^{irr" aa""".L Commissionernotice dated 04 03 2021 in pursuant} passed in Cr1.M^{P No.17 of 2o2opassedbv the Honble} ;; ;; ".;; Cftlfrl, Hya.*bad,^{for takrng the physical possessionof the} apprii"*i" Schedule^{Property imtiatedby the respondent bank the} of the SARFAPS'I^{Rct by declaringthe ordersdated} ;ff;i";. '1g.O3.2021 vide lA.No.S96l2027 in SA No 64l2021 is to be declared as illegaI^{null and void by directing the respondent bank} not to proceed further^{in takingpossession arldsaleof the property} and pass such other^{orders or order to which the petitionerare} entitled to be in the interest^ofjustice."

¶25

Heard learned counsel for^{petitioner who submits that because} of this prevailing pandemic situation,^{the petitioners couldnot pay} the amount of Rs.6 lakhs, within the stipulated^{time as orderedby} the Tribunal while granting stay; and that now the^{petitionersare} ready with a DD for Rs.6 lakhs and they will immediately deposit the said DD before the respondent Bank.

¶26

Heard Sri Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Bank

¶27

In view of the above and in vieu, of the prevailing pandemic situation, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the order of the Tribunal dated 19.03.2021 passed 1n IA.No,596/2021 1n SA.No.64/2021 and the petitioners are permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.6 lakhs with the respondent Bank within three (3) days

¶28

from today. Failing which, it is open for the Tribunal to procecci further in the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶29

As a sequet thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶30

this application, shall stand dismissed.

¶31

SDA B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G,, SECTION OFFICER To,

¶32

1 _The^{Presid ing Officer, Debts Recovery} Tribu nal_l l, Hvdera bad. 2 The state Bank of rndia, Retair clniiliprocesiins bditr"-s"cunderabad-

¶33

Ad ministrative Qff lce, 3io f toor, eatny Ciicre, 5ei'uiOlraoao. 34 One 9n. CC 9Q !o to Sri Podila Hari Prasad, Advocate tOpLjCl-Sfl^{Vijay Kumar. Advricate} topudt^-- Two CD Copies CHR

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1910412021

ORDER

W.P.No.10130 of²⁰²¹

gIAre
1
(
I
c
i
E \01Jitr i?l1 II

¶39

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS,

¶40

W,'
0lt
0

Sri. Mohd. Yousuf and Another v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohd. Yousuf and Another v. State Bank of India

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

Chityala Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kandula Venugopal Rao Vs State Bank Of India

Iifl Reality Limited Vs Andhra Bank

Chilukala Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Jadav Nehru Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Progressive Aquatech Enterprises Vs M/s. Indian Bank and Another