Dismissed

Uco Bank And 2 Others v. Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti

Telangana HC9 Dec 2022WA/768/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by UCO Bank challenging the High Court Single Judge's order suspending Look Out Circulars issued against loan defaulters. The bench dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the lower court's reasoned order which noted the bank selectively targeted senior citizens without justification pending SARFAESI proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; Rs.50,000/- costs imposed on Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Hyderabad.

Uco Bank And 2 Others Vs Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEI/BER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL Nos.768 &770 of 2022

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 768 OF 2022

¶9

Writ Appeal under Clause^'15 of the Letters^{patent preferred} against the order daled 1211012022 in W.P.No.17271 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

UCO Bank, Asset Management Branch, 6-3-1 108, Ground Floor, Navabharath Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad -500082.

¶12

UCO Bank, Zonal Office, 8-2-624, Ground Floor, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶13

UCO Bank, Corporate Head Office, 10, B T M Sarani, Kolkata - 700 00, West Bengal

¶14

...Appellants/Respondents No.1 to 3

¶15

AND

¶16

Venkata Ramana Rao lvlaganti, S/o Mr. Ramachandra Rao Maganti, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.302, Jyothi Nest, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶17

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶18

2- Bureau of lmmigration, East BIock-Vlll Level-V, Sector-1, R.K.Puram New Delhi-1 10066 rep by its Commissioner.

¶19

...RespondenURespondent No.4

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 suspend the operation of the order daled 1211012O22 passed in W.P.No. 17271 of 2022^pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellants: SMT. Ms. SHALINI

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2; SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶25

il2il

¶26

WRIT APPEAI- NO: 770 OF 2022

¶27

	WritAppealunderClause15ofthe Letters PatentPreferred againsttheorder
dated	12l1Ol2o22inW.P.No.369O1of2022 onthefileof theHiqh Court.
Betw	een:
1. 2.	UCOBank,AssetlvlanagementBranch,6-3-1108,GroundFloor, Navabharath Chambers,Raj Bhavan Road,Somajiguda,Hyderabad -500082. UCO Bank,ZonalOtfice, 8-2-624, Ground Floor, RoadNo.10, BanjaraHills, Hyderabad^-500034
3. AND	UCO Bank, Corporate Head Office, 10,BT M Sarani, Kolkata -70000, West Bengal. ...Appellants RespondentsNo.1to3
1.	h/s.UshaRani Maganti,W/o Dr.Venkata RamanaRao Maganti Agedabout59 years, OccHousewifeR/o Flat No.302, Jyothi Nest,Road No.2 BanjaraHills, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPetitioner
2.	Bureauoflnrnrigration,East Block-VlllLevel-V,Sector-1,R.K.Puram New Delhi-110066 rep by its Commissioner.
3.	Foreigners Regional Registration OfficerBureauoflmmigration (MHA), SardarVallabhai PatelBOI OCR ComplexShamshabad-Pahadishareef Road NearGlr/R Township (CISF Residential quarters)Ivlamidipally, Shamshabad, Telangana.
4.	UnionoflndaMinistryofHomeAffairsNorthBlock,NewDelhi-11001 Representedby Secretary. ...Respondents/RespondentNos.4to6

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶29

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 dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the order daled 12-10-2022 passed in W.P.No.36901 ol 2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 F 022

¶30

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 suspend the operation of the order dated 1211A12022 passed in W.P.No.3690'l of 2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶31

Counsel for the Appellants: SMT. M. SHALINI

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: M/S. SHREYA DEVAKI

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶34

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.B}IASKAR REDDY

¶37

Writ Appeal Nos.768 & 770 of 2022

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice UlaI Bhuuan)

¶39

Heard Ms. N.Shalini, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel lor respondent No.1/writ petitioners; and Mr.G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2.

¶40

UCO Barrk and its officials are appellants before us. Both the appeals have been filed assailing the common order dated 12.1O.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition Nos. 17271 & 36901 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 in both the appeals as writ petitioners.

¶41

It may be mentioned that in Writ Appeal No.76B of 2022 arising out of W.P.No.l727 I of 2022, Mr.Yenkata Ramana Rao Maganti is the respondent No.1/writ petitioner whereas, in W.A.No.77O of 2022 arising out of

¶42

¶43

W.P.No.3690l of 2022, his wife - Mrs.Usha Rani Maganti, is the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.

¶44

Both the writ petitions were filed by husband and wife assailing the Look Out Circular (LOC) dated O7.ll.2O2O issued against them by the first appellant - UCO Bank.

¶45

AS CO5. Respondents No.l / r.r,rit petitioners applicant along with three other individuals, had availed loans from the appellants to the tune of Rs.75,OO,00O/-, eaclr by offr:ring property admeasuring l.B7 1 12 cents at Nidamanuru Village, Delhi Public School, Vijayawada.

¶46

As there was default, appellants have initiated proceedings against writ petitioners under the provisions of Secr.rritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly 'the SARFAESI Act' hereinafter). According to the writ petitioners, appellants had offered one time settlement (OTS) for an amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/- which have been

¶47

paid by them. However, according to the appellants, writ petitioners are required to pay Rs.6,36,32,384.21.

¶48

Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. It is at this stage that the LOCs were issued.

¶49

B. Contending the same to be in violation of their fundamental rights, more particularly, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitions came to be filed.

¶50

8.1. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that there are no criminal proceedings either instituted or pending against the writ petitioners. Therefore, issuance of LOC is wholly unjustified.

¶51

karned Single Judge examined the entire issue as well as the guidelines framed by the Government of India dated 05.02.2O17 regarding issuance of LOCs. Learned / Single Judge noted that admittedly there are no criminal cases pending against the u,rit petitioners. Appellants had

¶52

¶53

issued LOCs only on the ground that r,r,rit petitioners are defaulters ol' loan. Writ petitioners are intending to travel abroad to ser: their grand children, aged about 2 years and 6 ),ears respectively. Learned Single Judge further noted thzrt appellants were not in a position to explain as to why the physical llresence of the writ petitioners was necessary for continuation of recovery proceedings and to recover the amount claimed by appellants. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge issued the following directions:

¶54

"i) Both the uit petitions are disposed of utith the follou.ting directions:

¶55

a) Look out Circulars (LOCs) both dated 07.11.2020 issued against tle petitioners in both the writ petitions bg lst respondent - Bank are suspended for a period from 13.1O.2022 to 30.1 1.2022.

¶56

shall b) Respondent bank infonn/ communicate this order to the 4th respondent - Immigration Bureau in term,s of Office Memorandum dated 22. 02. 202 1.

¶57

c) Petitioners shall inform their arrtual/ departure to the respondent - Bank in terms of the aforesaid Offtce Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Petitioners shall cooperate with the

)

respondent - Bank by furnishing the infortnation/ documents if any as and uhen required.

¶62

d) Respondent - Bank/Oiginating Agencg shall reuieu.t both the Lookout Circulars (LOCs) dated 07.11.2O2O issued against both tlrc petitioners on quarterly and annual basis, submit proposals if aruy immediatelg after such reuietu in terms of the said Office Memorandum dated 22.O2.2O21. Both respondents shall comply tuith the guidelines issued by the Union of India uide Office Memorandum dated 2 2. 02.2 02 1.

¶63

e) Liberty is granted to respondents to take action against the petttioner in the euent of uiolation of any ofthe aforesaid conditions.

¶64

ii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cosfs. "

¶65

We see no error or infirmity in the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. It is unfortunate that appellants have decided to file the appeals against such reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. Approach of the appellants in not accepting reasoned judicial verdicts and continuing to challenge the same being in a dominant position cannot be appreciated. Such an attitude needs to

¶66

¶67

--.r

¶68

be changed by the appellants, more particula-rly, since they are public sector undertakings. That apart, LOCs were suspended lor a period from 13.10.2022 to 30.11,.2022, r,,,hich period had already expired.

¶69

In the proceedings held on 25.11.2022, we had directed Regional Manager, UCO Bank to be present before us and to answer queries of the Court pertaining to LOC.

¶70

ln terms of our order, Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Regional M:rnager is present before us. He submits that it is only in the interest of the bank, the LOCs were issued On a query by the Court as to whether LOCs were issued against all the loan defaulters, he submits that only in case of persons committing economic offences, LOCs are issued by the Bank.

¶71

We deprecate the approach of the appellants in selectively issuing LOCs against two senior citizens who r'have not only substantially complied in discharging the

¶72

¶73

Ioan amount but are also contesting the SARFAESI

¶74

proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶75

In view of the above, both the appeals al-e dismissed. Cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Hyderabad which shall be recovered from him personally by the UCO Bank and deposited before the High Court Legal Aid Committee, Telangana within 6O days.

¶76

Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs

¶77

MEMORANDUM^{OF COSTS}

¶78

¶79

WRIT^{APPEALNos'768 & 770of 2022}

¶80

Rs.^Ps.

¶81

n$fl#e-jfr{tr3triffi days.

¶82

50,000^{- 00} 50,00^0-00

¶83

TOTAL

¶84

SD/-T.SRINIVAS DEPLITY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTI.ON^OFFICER

To,

1 2 $k{sn:ffi:ifdl'#{"4'rf#*l'::rersTi'*f;1K?q{"s:r':,'

¶89

¶90

.././

¶91

J The UCO Bank, Corporate Head Office, 10, B T M Sarani, Kolkata - 700 00, West Bengal.

¶92

4 The Conrmissioner, Bureau of lmmigration, East BIock-Vlll Level-V, Sector-l, R.K.Puram New Delhi-'l^'10066. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer Bureau of lmmigration^(MHA), Sardar Vallabhai Patel BOI OCR Complex Shamshabad- Pahadishareef Road Near Gll/R Township^(CISF Residential quarters) lVlamidipally, Shamshabad, Telangana.

¶93

6 The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi-1 1001 . Sri Sandeep Sharma, Regional lr4anager, UCO Bank, Hyderabad. The Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶94

II7 The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶95

10 One CC to Smt. M. Shalini, Advocate [OPUC] 11 One CC to Sr Vikram Pooserla, Advocate IOPUC]

¶96

12 One CC to Sr Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 13 One CC to M/s. Shreya Devaki, Advocate [OPUC] 14 Two CD Copies

CHR t-/.y

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911212022

COMMON JUDGMENT

-:-.\ <br>an' SlAtE
t
2 [ sEt ?tl
'/
.<br>

¶102

W.A.Nos.768 &770 of 2022

¶103

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITH COSTS

¶104

"u,

Uco Bank And 2 Others v. Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank And 2 Others v. Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Susheela and 34 others Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

Salicylates and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Smt. M. Suchitra , Tummalacherla Suchitra Vs Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Tsrtc) Vs Sri Malothu Nehru

Syed Durvesh Moinuddin Shah Vs The Superintendent of Customs

Uco Bank and 2others Vs Ms.Usha Rani Maganti