Dismissed

Bandla Ganesh Babu v. The Union Bank of India

Telangana HC15 Dec 2021WP/33851/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by petitioners challenging possession and vacation notices issued by the respondent bank. The Court refused to entertain the matter as the petitioners failed to file a Securitization Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the fourty-five-day limitation period mandated by the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Bandla Ganesh Babu Vs The Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN ANO

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PE TITION NO: 33851 OF 2⁰²¹

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bandla Ganesh Babu, S/o Bandla^{Naqeshwar Rao.Aged50 years,Occ. Business R-/o8-1-} 299/SVi4, Road No. 82. Senor^{Valley.JubileeHills.Film Nagar,Hyderal'lrd500 096} - 2. Bandla Shiva Babu, S/o^{BandlaNaleshwar Rao. Aged 52 years,OccBusiness R/o 8-1-} 299/SV/16, Road No. 82, Senor^{Valley, Jubilee Hills'Film Nagar,Hyderabad 500 096} - 3. Bandla Nageshwara Rao, S/o^{BandlaRaghavaiah,} -Aged^{72 years,Occ. Busines^sR/o} H.No. 18-100/1, Opp. Sai baba Temple^{Shadnagar, Farooctnagarl,4andal, RangaReddy} District.

¶10

Bandla Seetharavamma,^{W/o Bandla NageshwarRao,Aged 68 years, Occ. BusinessR/o} H.No. 18-190/1, Opp. Sai baba^{Temple Shadnagar, Farooqnagar Nlandal, RangaReddy} District

¶11

...PETtrtoNERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union Bank of^{lndia, StressedAsset l,'lanagemenl Branch,represented by Assistant} General Manager 3rd^{Floor,AndhraBank Building,Sultan Bazar,Koti, nrd".1tb.11oro.*,}

¶14

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{HighCourt maybe pleased to issuean order or} other direction especially in the^{nalure of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ'} order or direction declaring the^{possessionnotice dated09.10.2019 issued bythe} respondent bank as well as to^{setaside the notice of vacation dated 30.1'1.2021 to issued by} the advocate commissioner in^{pursuance to the order daled 2711212019 passedby the chief} metropolitan magistrate in CRLMP^{No. 167 of 2019are in violationo, the provisionsof the} Act and Rule as well as in violation of^{myfundamental rights and consequentially setaside} the same

¶15

lA NO: 1 oF 202'.1

¶16

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 pleasedto stay all further} proceedings in pursuance to possession notice dated 09/10/2019 as^{well as notice to vacate} premises daled 30t1112021 with respect to the schedule^{properties, issued under Section'13} and 14 of the Act and allied Rules. Further,^{pending disposalof the writ petition,the} petitioners pray that the Honourable High Court may be^pleased to direct the^respondent bank to consider the representation^{submitted by the petitioners in accordancewith the order} dated 30/06/2021 of the Honourable High Court^{in W.P. No. 13284 of 2021} Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. SEETHARAMA^AVADHANI

¶17

Counsel for Respondent: SRI JARUPULA RAMU

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND TE E HON'BLE JUSTI P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶20

W.P.No.338 51 0F 2021

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

(Per Hon'ble I iri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶23

I By fili rg this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oI lndia, per tioners seek qr-rashing o[ possession notice dated 09.10.2019 i;sued by the respondent - Union Bzrnk of lndia as rvell as the rotice of vacation datcd 30.11.2021 issued by the Advocate Cor rmissioner.

¶24

2 Param:swara Poultry Farm Private Limited had availed hnancial asr istance of Rs.83,16,00,000-00 from the erstu'hile Andhra Banr :, which has since bee n merged with Union Bank of lndia i.e. res pondent. Petitioners stood as personal^guarantors for such loar and offered their immovable properties as collateral security.

¶25

3 Param rswara Poultry Farm Private Limited (company) is presently fa< ing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before National Co, npany Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The said company is now being managed by an Interim Resolution Professional

¶26

4 lt is s,ated that because ol linancial crisis, the company sought forestructuring of the loan and^proposed One^Time Settlement ( )TS).

¶27

/5 Accor, ing to the petitioners, respondent - Union^{Bank of} lnclia had acceptcd thc OTS schemc for an^amountof \ Rs.70,OO,0O OO0-0O, vide letter dated l3.l^{I 2019.Becausero[}

¶28

¶29

¶30

the COVID- 19^{pandemicand the resultant lockdown'the} company could^{not makethe payment Therefore, it sought for} extension of time^{to comply with the OTSscheme'Timewas} extended, but^{only till 3O.O5.2O21Thereafterthe OTS scheme} was cancelled,^{vide letter dated 02'06'2021Atthat stage} petitioners approached^{thisCourt by filing writ petitionNo 13284} ol2O2l. This^{Court by order dateci30 6'2021, took the viewthat} cancellation of OTS^{schemeby the respondent- Union Bank of} India was in^{violation of the principlesof natural justice'} Therelore, such^{cancellation !\tas sct aside Petitioners terc} directed to^{submit fresh rcpresentationto the respondcnt} Union Bank^{ol India rvithin tu'o u'ceks and the respondent -} Union Bank^{of India rvasdirected to consider the sameandpass} appropriate^{order(s)in accordance with law *'ithin a periodof} eight weeks thereafter.^{Itappcarsthat petitioners submitted} fresh representations^{on26.07.2021and 27 'O7 '2021'By} communication^{dated 20.11.2021, respondent-Union Bank of} India informed^{the petitionersthat their stand of payingbalance} OTS amount^{only after successful negotiationswith threenon-} banking ltnancial^{companies was not acceptable'It was pointed} out that as no^{concreteaction plan for palrmentof balanceOTS} amount along^{with interest for the delayedperiod wasnot} provided, proposal of^{the petitioners for extension of timeline was} returned.^{Thereafter,AdvocateCommissioner issuednotice} dated 30. 11.2021^{to the petitionersto vacatethe premiseslt is}

at this stage that the present !'rit p(tition has becn filed scek,ng tlte rc. (ls l: in(lr(lrL(d -rlru\c

¶36

6 We ha^,e heard learned counsel 1i)r the partics

¶37

7 We ar, not inclined to entertain the $,rit petition lcr more than one rei son. Firstly, it is evident that respondent - Union Bank of Ind a has invoked provisions of the SecuritisaLion and Reconstruct,trn of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Ac , 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act). Petitioners have themselves admitted in paragraph IIo.3 of the supporting afhdavit that against such action, thel have filed Securitization Application before the jurisdiction: I Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESL rct. However, we find that possession notice was issued way back on 09.10.2019, whereas, the Securitization Application was filed only in the year 2021 after the notice to vacate the 1 remises was issuecl on 3O. 11.2021. As per Section l7 of the I ARFAESI Act, the limitation period for filing such application s 45 davs.

¶38

8 Secordly, after this Court had rcmanded the matter back to respond, nt - Union Bank oI India to recorrsider the OTS scheme, th I same was considered. But, as it was found that petitioners lid not provide any concrete action plan for payment of balance OTS amount along with interest lor the delayed payment, he proposal seeking extension of timeline was

¶39

¶40

¶41

returned back to lhe petitioncrs. It \a,as thereafter that the impugned notice to vacate was issued on 30.l l.2O2L

¶42

9 In the circumstances as noticed above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶43

10 That being the position, th.: writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand

¶44

dismissed.

¶45

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

,TRUE^COPY'

.,,

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1. to"u "r ?. 3ffi 33 [^{3ll Y.?f,"JL"',f##3$#l'j3"33t'i} 3. Two CD^CoPies 4. One SPare^CoPY MBC SW

To,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1511212021

1 \4E SIATt
*,<br>?
Jo
r-) 23tE82022 .LCT
:-4
.<br>f r:.: -. ._ i
ORDER

¶56

WP.No.33851 ot 2021

¶57

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

il-

¶60

Bandla Ganesh Babu v. The Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandla Ganesh Babu v. The Union 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV Vs Nmdc Limited

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs M/S Nmdc Limited

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd Vs M/S. Nationla Mineral Devlp.Ltd., Hyd

M/s. Anu Pharma Private Limited and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

M/s. Vajra Infracon Vs The Authorised Officer

M/s Sai ram Constructions and Material Suppliers Vs M/s Indian Bank (Allahabad bank)