Disposed

M/s. National Theatre v. State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Feb 2021WP/1962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging possession notice under SARFAESI Act sought One Time Settlement. High Court directed petitioner to deposit outstanding sum of Rs. 67,205/- within two weeks to be considered for OTS scheme, subject to corporation guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to Petitioner to deposit Rs. 67,205/- within two weeks for consideration of case under OTS scheme.

M/s. National Theatre Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBdUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC.E A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

rHE HoN'BLE on. lufl'l3e sHAMEEM AKTHER

¶7

Between:

¶8

WRIT PETITION N O: 1962 O F 2021

¶9

It4/s. National Theatre. Kalwakurthy. lVahaboobnagar District, Hep. by its Partner A. Karuna Kuniar.^{'----vi ivvur er}

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

3:1:iJ,l"?]iff#So:;o^{o, irs principar secretary, Finance Department,} 2. ff^{i!l.3r:;1X"'il} stater Financial corporation, chiras-Ali Lane, Hvderabad, Rep 3, Andhra Pradesh StSte Financial Corporation, IVahabubnagar Branch, Mahabubnagar Rep. by its aranch-[,i'a;;s;;:'^{'' "} ''"""

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the notice Dr rzo1r2o21 issued by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequenfly direct the Respondents to Representation DT .22lo112016 for one time setflement of the petitioner. IANO: 1OF2 021

¶15

Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay ail further proceedings pursuant to the notice dt. 1ZlO1l2O21 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. DURGA PRASAD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI M. HAMSA RAJ, SC FOR APSFC

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

T E 'BL S IJU TI EA .RAJ H K RR^EDDY AND T E ,BL D J TI E H M KT HER

w.P. NO. 196 OF 2021

ri iJ R sh er

Petitioner^{is o cinemo theotre' ond ii is represented by its portner'} It ovoiled term^{loon from the 3'o respondent -AndhroProdeshStole} Finonciol^{Corporoiion(for short 'the Corporotion')ond defoultedin} repoyment^{of the loon omount ond'therefore'the Corporotion initioted} rei-o'et')/^{proceedings underthe provisionsof ihe Securitisoticnoncj} Re: ol.rslr:-rc.tton^{of FinonciolAssels ondEnforcementof Security lnteiesi} A..-., 2CO2^!,far shcr-i^{ihe 'SARFAESI Act') ond ihe Securitv lI ier-'st} ,r,',,--r,-]cr;:er,1) R:rles, 2OO2 (for shor'1^{'1he RLrJes cf 2002')'n ihe cr:i-'rsr:of} !r-ir ii1r.)ca(.iriitgs, 3''^tr':spondenl -^{Corporolioni:suecl1t1s''6-'554';i ir} rroiice under seclion l3(4)^{of the SARFAESIAct, ond Rules B ond 9 of the} Ruies of 2002. chollenging the^{possessionnotice, the preseniwril petitiorr} is fileci.

¶25

The Bronch Monoger of the 3'o respondent - Corporotion^fiied

¶26

counler cffidovit on beholf of respondents 2 ond 3, ond^porogropn No.l2

¶27

ci^jire soicl counter offidovil reods os follows

¶28

ii i! !r.rirmltled thai cs on 31.C1.2021 the lotal outsl:nding oi il)e petilioner is: i'r ncip e 3.99,A111 , lnteresl Rs./i11.6.1.355, (:.. L t?:.25 4231 . ioicting ta Rs.4/,gB 79C/ . AS per lhe OIS nornrs of ine Cc,p,:rolion the occounl of ihe peiiticner is nol rri tor ' OTS. cs rhe vorue of rhe aimory ,;.r;;;;;;'.;iio]u.l ^:' !r)^- a..oL,nl i o,a ol 'g, , lhe peliljor,,, ?) -" . .^a .. ct . ,o. :.. ; o. .,e n:-*."1= ,l . .,.,.-!-c ':r,e r cjo^" ,,,,,:;,, oi'. \ rc po , ps.)5 azst _ . i'" .n^t^{u' 205'o} o "o ^ r, '191^{,o:'9,o.,., ,,- - hc,,".} -ar -c,,.6^{;..- '_'.1,;:,:",;,:;'} . 'i Le Jor cun(;oe. ,,;on-^{' - tt'lor} 'J ! scl" , " . "-

¶29

)

¶30

Relying on the obove stqtemeni mode in the counter offidovii. lhe reorned counser for the petitioner submiis thot petitioner is reody to poy the qbove sioted omoun I of Rs.67,2OS/_ (Rupees sixty seven thousond, lwo hundred ond five only), ond thoi the request of the peiitioner for extension of benefil under oIS scheme moy be direcled to be forwc*red to the Heod office of the corpororion for considerotion.

¶31

On the cther tond Srj lr,1.Homso Roj, ieorned Slondinq Cour53, ,_;, lire respondent - Corporotion submits ihoi the mention of omcunts in rhe brcrckeied porlion is o typogrophiccli error. He furiher submrls ihoi e,.,.;r, if the peritioner poys the soid omount, its oppricoiion for oTS schenrer,,.,rir be iorworded 10 the higher officicrls, for considerotion of ,re scme in occordonce with the guidelines.

¶32

ln vtew of the obove stotem*,^nl mode in the counter cffidovii o1 porogroph No'r2. ond os the petitioner is oiso seeking for extensiorr ci orS :c.eme, ihe other meri.ls of the cose need not be gone inio.

¶33

Hoving regord lo the focts ond circumslonces of lhe cose ati'ci rite sLrbnrissions of the leorned counsel, without express{ng cn!, oplnrort^.:,,, i't merils, wri'i pelition is disposed of gl,/ing liberty to the petitiorrer iL,r .,r::t; r:colicoiron for considerolion of iis cose under OTS scheme b1z dep..;si: r-,g oTr omount of Rs. 62,205/- (Rupees sixty seven thousond, iw.o hur:,Cred ond five only) io ihe 3d respondent within o period of lwo weeks from

¶34

i,'t,/ 1/ r

¶35

loioy,^{ond on receiplof such opplicotionolong with poyment' the}

¶36

3,o respondent^{sholl processthe somein occordoncewith low'}

¶37

However,^{it is needless to observe thot the opplicotionof lhe}

¶38

petitioner for^{oTS scheme shoil be considered stricfly os per the guidelines}

¶39

oi the^resPondent -^CorPorotion'