Partly allowed

T.Raghu babu v. Reserve Bank of India and another

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/16665/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of outstanding dues to freeze further action and pursue the statutory remedy before the non-functional tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Order that if petitioner deposits 10% of outstanding dues within 30 days, no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the possession notice under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

T.Raghu babu Vs Reserve Bank of India and another — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16665 OF 2022

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

T.Raghu babu, S/o. Late Naiasimhacharyulu, AQe 62^years, Occ. Advocate, Fl/o. Flat No.108, It4aram G.L.Heavens, Saraswathi Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Reserve Bank of lndia, Rep by its The General Manager Hyderabad Branch O/o 6156 Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 lV/s HDFC Limited, having its Regd.office At Mumbai, with its branches at various places in lndia And one of its branch at HDFC House, H.No.3-6-310, Hyderguda Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, represented by the Authorized Officer.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue Writ or direclion preferably Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent authorities impugned action of^{taking over the} possession of the premises on 07-03-2022 by the Advocate Commissjonerⁱⁿ pursuance of orders in Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2022 issued by the Court of Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan t/agistrate, at NTR Nagar,^{Ranga Reddy District as illegal} arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural Justice and^{set aside the sameand} consequently direct the Respondents to close the account of the^applicant considering the restructuring application of the applicant,^{in the interestof justice} and pass.

¶16

t.A. NO:1 o F 2022

¶17

Petition^{Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{fileoin supiort Jt tn1 ptition' ih" Hiqn Court mav be pleased to} direct the^{Respondent rul.z not to initiateany coercive proceedingsby till} p."ii"g Ji"p"sal^{of the wrii petltion in the interestof iustice and pass'}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI'SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI}

¶19

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:NONE APPEARED}

¶20

The Court^{made the followingORDER}

¶21

THE HONOURABLESRI^{JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN}

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HONOURABLEMRS^{JUSTICESUR.EPALLINANDA}

¶24

WRIT PETI^{TION No. 16 665 of 2022}

¶25

ORDER:^{(I'er i-lori'ble Sn .-Iustir:eUjjal Bhugart)}

¶26

Fleard Mr. Srinivasa^{Rao, iearned counsel for the} petltloner.

¶27

2 'lhis petition cha-llenges notice dated^77'O2'2O22 issue<i by the^{Advocate Commissioner for vacating the} pr"emises ol the scheduie^property'

¶28

It is seen tleat^{son of the petitioner had availed} housing loan from^{2'd respondent' butdefaultedin} repayment. As^{a result, 2"d respondent classified the loan} account as^{Non-Performing Asset(NPA) and initiated} proceedings under the^{Securitisation and Reconstruction of} Financial^{Assetsarrd linforcementof SecurityInterest Act,} 2002^{(brieflv referred to hereina-fteras the 'SARFAESIAct')'} As per possession^{notice dated 06'09'2021' outstanding} .dues was^{quantilieda' Rs'27'69,613'00 as on 30'04'2O2'}

¶29

¶30

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.16665 of 2022

¶31

Fina1ly, the 2"d respondent tiled petition under Section 14 of the SARFAtrSl Act before the Chief Metropottan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, who passed order on 27.01.2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take over^ph1-sical possession of the schedule propertl,. Following the same, Advocate Commissioner issued the impugned notice dated t7.o2.2022.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits t.hat his son i.e., the borrower has filed securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act bcfore the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad (Tribunal), rvhich has been numbered as S.A(l.R).No.333 of 2022. However, there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal rendering the same non-functional. Hence, the writ petition.

¶33

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner ald on due consideration, we are of the view that since the borrower has already availed the statutorv rernedv under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, he shoukl pursue the said remedy before the Tribuna,l. Further, if the petitioner or the

¶34

¶35

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.16665 of 2022

¶36

borrower deposits | sok of the^{outstanding dues as} mentioned above within a^{period of 30 days from today, 2"4} respondent shall not take further^{steps pursuant to the} notice of the Advocate Commissioner^{dated17.02.2022'} which in any event would be subject to^{outcome of} S.A(I.R).No.333 of 2022. However,^{if there is any defaulton} the part of the petitioner/ borrower^{in making the payment} as above, it would be open to the^{2nd respondentto take} such steps as is permissible^{in 1aw for realisation of the} outstanding^dues.

¶37

This disposes^{of the Writ Petition'However'} there shall^{be no order as to costs}

¶38

As^a sequel,^{miscellaneousapplications}

¶39

pending,if^{anY, in this writ Petition, shall stand clo SC}

¶40

AssrsrARY+SlLrERsiil L+: //TRUE^COPY//

¶41

SECTION'OFFICER

¶42

'";*,;i-l'frffitgffi,;ffii-iirilqi:fi:"+:

¶43

i One^{CC to SRI SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶44

a two CD^CoPtes t s.A 5. on"^sparecoPY .-'V MMA

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412022

ORDER

WP.No.16665 ot 2022

4ff;:;'A
';t '.
,) Ii j:
\

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

exz

T.Raghu babu v. Reserve Bank of India and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Raghu babu v. Reserve Bank of India and another

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

Mohd. Sohail Ahmed and 2 others Vs Canfin Homes Limited and another

Mohd. Saifullah Vs Canfin Homes Limited (Sponsor Canara Bank) and Another

Mrs. Masiya Afreen and 2 others Vs Canfin Homes Limited and another

Mr. Pentaiah Yerram Vs Bank of India

M/s Kayjee Engineers Vs City Union Bank Limited

Navneet Agarwal Vs The State Bank of India