Disposed

Mrs. K. Rajya Laxmi v. Union Bank of India

Telangana HC17 Dec 2021WP/34207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner defaulted on a mortgaged loan prompting SARFAESI proceedings. The court directed that no possession be taken if the petitioner deposits 15% of dues within 30 days and files a securitization application; otherwise, the bank may proceed.

What did the court decide?

Order: Bank shall not take possession if petitioner deposits 15% dues within 30 days and files securitization application before DRT.

Mrs. K. Rajya Laxmi Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY^{OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^UJJALBHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{P. MADHAVIDEVI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 34207 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ir/rs. K. Ra.iya Laxmi, wo. sri^{K. Seenaiah, doing businessunderthe name and styleof} Mli. ftinOiitan Spiings,^{Proprietoryconcern.havingits office at 5-66, Doolapally,} Jeedimetla, Phase V Extension,^{Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 014'}

¶8

...'ET'T,ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Union Bank of India, Manikonda^{Branch, 2-5511} ,^{Manikonda Village,} Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad^{- 500 089.}

¶11

...RES,ONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be pleased to} declare the action of^{the Respondentin not considering the request of the Petitioner} to regularize the accounts^{and also unwillingness to provide adequate timeto settle} the loan accounts^{ignoringthe pandemic resultantsituation as null and void, arbitrary,} illegal and violative of the^{rights of the Petitioner and to issue an order/direction/writ} more^particularly a^{writ of Mandamus or other directions to the Respondent Bank to} consider the request of^{the Petitioner to regularize the accountsby payingthe} overdue amounts and^{in casethe bank is not willing for regularizationof accounts, to} allow and^provide the^{Petitioner, sufficient time to get a buyer for the mortgaged} property and settle their'accounts.

¶13

IA NO: 't oF 2021

¶14

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directthe} Respondent Bank^{to considerthe requestof the Petitionerto regularizethe accounts} bypayingtheoverdueamountsandincasethebankisnotwillingforregularization of accounts, to allow^{and provide the Petitioner, sufficient time to get a buyer for the} mortgaged^{propertyand settletheir accounts'}

¶15

il2il

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Se :tion^'151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in suppor of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto stay all} further^proceedings unr er the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 pursuantto Possessionnotice} dated 2310812021 and s rle notice daled^{011121202'1 including execution of warrant by} the advocate commissi rner^pending disposal^{of the presentWrit Petitionand pass} such other orders, dire )tions against^{the Respondentsthat are deemed necessary} and suitable in circumsl rnces of the caseⁱⁿ the^{interest of justice.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitio ter: SRl. V.V.S.N. RAJU

¶19

Counsel for the Respo ldent: SMT V. DYUMANI SC FOR UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶20

The Court made the fo lowing: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLI' SII.I JUSTICII UJJAL BHUYAN AND HONOUIIABLE SM'T..IUSTICT' P, MADHAVI DEVI

¶22

W.P.No.34207 OF 2021

¶23

QBDE B.:^{ffo.,Votlhle Sri .Ju\tit c{- jtalBhurutl)}

¶24

Heard Mr.V.V.S.N.ltaju, learned counsel lbr the petitioner and Mrs.V.Dyumani, learrred Standing Counsel lor the respondent/Union Bank of Ind ia.

¶25

Petitioner had availcd financial assistance from the respondent/ Union Bank of lndia by mortgaging the schedule property. However, petitioner defaulted in repayment. As a result, respondent has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enlorcement ol Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly 'the SARI AESI Act' hereinafter). Pursuant thereto, Advocate-Commissioner has issued notice to the petitioner calling upon her to handovcr physical possession of the schedule property. Petitioner states that she will file securitization application under Section l7 of the SARFAITSI Act belore the^{jurisdictional} Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel lbr thc rcspondcnt has informed us that the outstanding dues to be paid by the petitioner as on i1.03.202 I is Rs.81,3 1,876.63.00.

¶27

On due consideration, w'e direct the respondent that if the petitioner deposits l5%o ol the outstanding dues within a period of 30 days from today, steps pursuanl to the vacation notice of AdvocateCoururissioner shail not bc taken. If the amount is not^paid or il the

¶28

securitization rpplication is not fllcd within the speciticd period,

¶29

respondent/Uni rn Bank of India would be at libeny ro proceed against

¶30

the petitioner ir accordance with law

¶31

With the above direction. writ perition is disposed o t',

¶32

7 Miscella reous applications. if any pending. shall stanrl closed. 8 No costs

¶33

SD/.I.I.IAGALAKSHMI ASSISTA}IT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Union Bank rf lndia, Manikonda Branch, 2-5511 , N4anikonda Village, Rajendra Nagar 4andal, Hyderabad - 500 089. 2. One CC to Sri V V.S.N. Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt \ . Dyumani, Union Bank of lndia [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

¶38

One Spare Copy

CHR SW *;r-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711212121

ORDER

v sTAi{ o
,i
a)
u fl s$?lp'
..1' .+

¶44

W.P.No.34207^{of 2021}

¶45

DISPOSING^{(IF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^{CC STS}

¶46

{$-/at , =drr\z

Mrs. K. Rajya Laxmi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. K. Rajya Laxmi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sabhapathy Krishnamurthy Sharma, Hyderabad Vs the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, and Another

M/S.Lucky Wines (P) Ltd., Hyderabad Vs the C.T.O., Hyderabad

Venkatesh Dhanraj Meni Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Mr. Syed Azeem Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Madhavaram Ramakanth Vs Indian Bank and 3 others

M/s Mahadweep Pharma Vs Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.