Dismissed

M/s Kakatiya Cotton Industries v. The Authorised Officer and 8 Others

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022WP/11407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a borrower seeking restructuring of a loan account and coercive relief against a bank. The court held that since the petitioner had already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the writ proceeding was not maintained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking directions for restructuring the loan account and prohibiting coercive steps by the respondents is dismissed.

M/s Kakatiya Cotton Industries Vs The Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TMONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:11407 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Kakatiya Cotton lndustries, A registered partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner Sri Thota Sravan Kumar S/o Prabhakar Thota, Aged 31 years, having its office at 5-1 95/C Sy. No.12412, Chityal Village and Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District,Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of lndia, 00961 Chityal Branch, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, Telangana State.

¶13

The Union Bank of lndia, Chityala Branch, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, Telangana State.

¶14

Sri Kiran Thota, S/o Thota Prasad, Aged 31^years, Occ. Business, Rlo 11-2426-11133, Sreeram Towers, h/.V- Colony, Desipet Road, UCO Bank, Pochammaidan, Warangal District

¶15

Smt. Latha Thota, Wo Venkatramana, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, 111 Narmada Sarovar, GPR A Campus land, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, Telagana State.

¶16

Smt. Swetha Thota, D/o. Thota Prasad, Aged 33^years, Occ. Business, F/o 302 Chaitra Plaza, Sriniasa Colony, Nizampet, Bandari Layout, Rangareddy District, T.S.

¶17

Mr. Kolal Ramana Rao, S/o VenKatramulu, Aged 54 years, Occ. Business, No 11-23-239018, Navayuga Colony, Warangal District

¶18

Mr.Yadiapalli Hanumantha Rao, S/o Y. Ranga Rao, Aged 53 years, Occ. Business, R:/o Plot No. 406, Sumanth Sai Nivas, Bandari Layout, Nizampet, Hyderabad.

¶19

Dr. Kolla Nageswara Rao, Sio Kolla Seshaiah, Aged 75 years, Occ. Business, R/o 5-195/C , Sy- No. 12412, Chilyal Village and Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, Telangana State

¶20

I il

¶21

Mr. tvl. Ran anjaneyulu, S/o M. Ranga Rao, Aged 45 years. Occ. Business, Rio 5-195/O, Sy. No. 12412, Chityal Village and Mandal. Jayashankar Bhupalapal ly District, Telangana State

¶22

..RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition urder Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropnate writ or direction declaring the a,;tion of the respondents in not taking any action for the restructuring the loan account of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to take any action coercive steps.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2021.

¶25

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 pass an interim direction to the respondents 1 an,d 2 not to take any coercive steps in pursualce of the notice dated 0410212O22, pending disposal of the above writ^petitic n.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. VENKATESWARLU POTHAPRAGADA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: V DYUMANI

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No. 114O7 of 2022

¶33

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sn Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶34

None has appeared lor the petitioner on call though Ms. V.Dyrrmani, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, Union Bar-rk ol India.

¶35

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 for re-structuring the loan account of the petitioner.

¶36

Be it stated that petitioner is a borrower of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. However, as petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the loan account was classified by respondent Nos. I & 2 as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.09.2018, whereafter steps were taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶37

¶38

2 L]B,J & SN,J W. P. No. 1 1 407 of 2022

¶39

Enforcem,:nt of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinerfter as the 'SARFAESI Act').

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that during the Summer Vacation, petitioner filed securitisa-ion application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I at Hyderabad (Tribunal) against possession notice dated 04.O2.'2022 issued by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The same has been registered as S.A.No. I13 of 2022. Petitioner had a-lso filed an interlocutory applicatior for stay being I.A.No.492 of 2022. Vide docket order dated 78.05.2022, Tribunal has stayed a1l further procee<lin;3s including taking over of physical possession of the schedule property subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. I crore in two installments.

¶41

Since petitioner has already availed the statutory alternativt: remedy under Section L7 of the SARFAESI Act, we are not in,:lined to continue with the writ proceeding.

¶42

{ t

¶43

UB,J & SN,J W.P.No.l14O7 of 2022

¶44

¶45

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However,

¶46

there sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,

¶48

if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/. G. SIREESHA asstsrANrffilsrRAR

¶50

//TRUE^COPY// SECTI6KOFFICER

¶51

To 1. One CC to SRl. VENKATESWARLU PO-THAPRAGADA Advocate [OPUC] i 5;; cc io^{sAi. v DvuvRrutAdvocate [oPUC]}

¶52

Two CD^CoPies

¶53

One^SPareCoPY

IKV

GJP

HIGH COLIRT DATED:0€i10612022

¶58

ORDER

¶59

\
1 $9 STA r-A-
I
0 ? [[T 2tr1?

¶60

WP.No.11407 ot 2022

¶61

WRIT PET'ITION IS DISMISSED c}wo b,l-.'r*\lV"

M/s Kakatiya Cotton Industries v. The Authorised Officer and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Kakatiya Cotton Industries v. The Authorised Officer and 8 Others

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 Special Collector (L.a) Vs Kurva Chinna Kamanna and 66 others

Abdul Rehman Khan Vs Union of India and 3 others

Dr. Sudheer Karanam and another Vs Bank of India

Sri. Sampath Venkata Ramana Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Paras Collins Distilleries Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Union of India, Vs Shri.a v Ranganath IPS