Disposed

M/s.Ind Barath Energies Limited v. The Uco Bank

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021WP/33711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the discriminatory non-application of the bank's One Time Settlement Scheme. The court permitted the petitioner to file objections under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and stayed coercive action pending the outcome of the DRT proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file objections within 15 days; coercive action stayed for 45 days; interim application disposed of.

M/s.Ind Barath Energies Limited Vs The Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IVIONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:33711 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.lnd Barath Energies Limited, Rep.by^{its Directortt/ V BasiviReddy_S/o} !gt-e M. Sambi Reddy Age. 58 Years Occ. Private Service^{R/o Plot531} '^{Flat 102'} Vindhya Nilayam Pragathi nagar, Hyderabad^{- 500090,Telangana.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The UCO Bank, Rep by its Authorized Officer,^{Flagship ColporateBranch, 6-3-} 1 108 Ground Fioor, Ndvabharath Chambers,^{Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,} Hyderabad

¶12

The UCO Bank, Rep by its Chief^{lt/anager Flagship Corporate Branch, 6-3-1108} Ground Floor, Navabherath Chambers,^{Raj Bhavan Road,Somajiguda,} Hyderabad

¶13

I ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 issue an order, direction^{or writ,more particularly one in the nature of writ of} Nlandamus declaring that non-apptication of^{Non-Discretionaryand Non-} Discriminatory Special onetime^{settlement scheme (NDND Scheme) vide circular} CHO/PRCR/o9t2021-22 daled^{27t0712021which is availablefor all the NPA} accounts til 31103t2022, to the^{petitionerscash credit account bearingno} 00400500002214 with the respondent^{bank which was classifiedas NPA on} 31t1212019 as^per notice under^{section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated} 23lOBt2O21 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,^{violative of respondents own circular,} violative of Article^'14 and^3OO A of^{the lndian constitutionand consequently direct} the respondent bank to^{considerthe petitionersaccount underthe said NDND} scheme and also direct^{the respondentbank not to take any coercive stepsuntil} such time.

¶15

lA NO: I OF 2021

¶16

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmaybe pleased to stay all} further proceedings in No.411 of 2021 wilh^{HonbleDRT-Il Hyderabadand all its} concomitant^{proceedings, pending} disposal^{of the above writ petition.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVI KIRAN SINGH Counset for the Respondents: K NANDINI ALIAS^{A NANDINIREDDY} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

/'/

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAT BHUYAN AND

¶21

HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶22

sr.P.No.33711 of 2021

¶23

ORDER: (Per Hon'bh Sri lartio Ujial Bha-yar)

¶24

Fleard Mr. Ravi Kiran Singh, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and I\G. K.Nandini, learned counsel for the respondents, UCO Bank 2. By filing this petition under Anicle 226 ol the C-onstitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction ro rhe respondents to consider application of the Non-Discretionary and Non-Discriminatory special one time settlemenr Scheme (NDND Scheme) dated 2l.al.Za21,, to the loan account of the petitioner and till then, to keep ali proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstructidn of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securitylnterest Act, 2OO2 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act), against the petitioner, in abepnce. "

¶25

\7e find that petitioner had availed credit faciliry from the respondents to the exrent of Rs.3,25,00,000.00. For failure to repay the loan amounr, respondents have filed a petition under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruprcy Act, 1993, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il , Hyderabad (for shon 'the Tribunal), which has been registered as O.ANo.4ll of 2021. As per the claim made in the OA it is for recovery of debts to the erent of ,Rs.4,1.6,67,2L0.29.^\Mhile the maner rested thus, respondents issued '.rotic. under Section L3Q) ofthe SARFAESI Act to the petitioner on

¶26

23.08.2A21 for pal,rnent of outstanding dues to the extent of Rs/,1.5,17,210.29 as on 3 La7 .2021 with future interest.

¶27

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits rhat an amount of Rs.325,04,721..00 has been appropriated bythe respondents from rhe petitioner on 27.09.202L FIe has also expressed the grievance that NDND Circular dated zz-01.202l of the UCO Bank has not been applied in the case of the petitioner. If the said Grcular is appiied, the oumtanding dues would be substantially reduced and can be settled.

¶28

On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents submits that without informing the respondeml, peririoner had sold the secured asset and this aspect has been suppressed bythe petitioner. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale proceeds have been appropriated by the respondents. He also submits that as on today, the Trib,nal is without anypresiding Officer and therefore, it is non-functional.

¶29

Flaving regard to the above and on due consideration, we permit the peririoner to submit a detailed representarion/objection to the notice issued under Section I3Q) of the SARFAESI Act on 23.08.2021, raising all available conrentions including applicabiiity of the NDND Grcular. If the said represenration/objection is filed, within a period of fifteen dap from today, the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and the decision taken thereon shali be communicated to the petitioner.

¶30

::3::

¶31

As the presiding officer is not availabre in the Tribunal, we direct that even if an adverse decision is taken on the representation/objection filed by the petitioner, respondents fixry not take coercive action under the SARFAESI Act for a period of 45 days from the date of communication of the decision.

¶32

In the meanwhile, it is open ro the petitionerto approach the Tribunal, if he is aggrieved and if he is so advised.

¶33

Beyond rhe period of 45 dap, it will be entirely within the discretion of the Tribunar to pass such order as maybe deemed fit and proper.

¶34

1,1,. Flowever, if no presiding Officer is appointed within this period, it wiil be open ro the petitioner td approach this Coun for extension of stay.

¶35

1,2. (/rit Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Related interim application stands disposed of.

¶36