Disposed

Sri Ramreddy Mekala v. Piramal Captial and Housing Finance

Telangana HC21 Apr 2022WP/16959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. It directed the petitioner, who had filed a statutory application before a non-functional Debts Recovery Tribunal, to deposit 15% of outstanding dues within 30 days to prevent further proceedings by the respondent, failing which the respondent may proceed with recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to deposit 15% of outstanding dues within 30 days to stay further proceedings; otherwise respondent may proceed with recovery.

Sri Ramreddy Mekala Vs Piramal Captial and Housing… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 16959 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Ramreddy Mekala, S/o Late^{PentaReddy,Aged about. 68 Years,Occ.} Business, Rlo Plot No 22lb, Green^{HillsColony, Kothapet, L.B Nagar,} Hyderabad Telangana State^- 500036

¶8

...pE,,oNER

¶9

AND

¶10

Piramal Captial and Housing Finance,^{Rep by its Authoriz} ed officer (Regional Office Piramal Capital and Housing^{Finance Ltd) Situated} at H No B-3948/949, F No 301,302 and^{303, 3rd Floor, SolitirePlaza,} Behind lmage Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500073^{TelanganaState}

¶11

..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ, order or direction} by setting aside the^{possession notice dated 21.02.2022 issued by the respondent} under section 13⁽⁴⁾ as alleged^{under SARFAESI Acl, 2002 as illegal, null and} void without following due^{processof law}

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 22

¶14

Petition under Section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedTo stay} of all further^{proceedings in pursuance of the possession noticedaled 21.02.2022} under section 13^{(4) as alleged under SARFAESIAcl, 2002 includingtaking} physical possession of the^properties

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI R. SRIDHAR}

¶16

Counsel for Respondent:^----

¶17

The Court made the^{f ollowing: ORDER}

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEUJJAL BHIryAN}

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶22

WRIT PETITION^N o.16959^{of 2022}

¶23

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble^{Sn Justrce UjjalBhuyctn)}

¶24

Heard Mr. R.Sridhar,^{learned counsel for the petitioner}

¶25

Petitioner is aggrieved by^{the impugnedpossession} notice dated 21.O2.2022^{issued by the respondent under} Section¹ 3 (a) of the Securitisation^{and Reconstructionof} Financial Assets and^{Enforcement of Security Interest Act,} 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter^{as the 'SARFAESIAct')'}

¶26

From a perusal of the impugned^{possession notice,} it is seen that outstanding dues^{of the petitioner hasbeen} quantified by the respondent at Rs.1,56,55,670.00^{as on} 30.04.202r.

¶27

On a query by the Court, learned^{counselfor the} petitioner submits that^{petitioner has already filed a} securitisation application under^{Section 17 of the SARFAESI} Act before the Debts^{Recovery Tribunal-ll,Hyderabad}

2 UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.16959 of 2022

¶32

(Tribunal), which has been numbered as S.A(l.R).No.413^of 2022. He hou,cver submits that as on today, there^{is no} Presiding Oflicer in the Tribunal rendering it non-functional Hence, petitioner has been compelled to^{approachthis Court}

¶33

Having regard to the orders^{passedby this Court in} identical matters, we are of the view that^{since petitioner has} availed his statutory remedy, he may^{pursue the said remedy} for redressal of his grievance. That apart, if^{the petitioner} deposits 15% of the outstanding dues^{as mentionedabove} within a period of 30 days from today,^{respondentsshall not} proceed further against the petitioner^pursuant to^the possession notice dated 2l .02.2022, which^{in any event would} be subject to outcome of S.A(l.R).No.413^{of 2022. However,if} there is any default on the^{part of the petitioner in makingthe} payment as above, it would be open to the^{respondent to take} necessary steps in accordance with^{law for recovery of} outstanding dues.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

UB,J &5N,.] W.l'.No. 16959 of 2022

¶38

¶39

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶41

any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI

To,

ASSISTANI REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY// e_U )

SECTION OFFICER

The Authorized Officer, Piran (,ff8io.:'' office^piramar capitar and ,fffe'Jli:XH i,?iU,g,535:?? 948/949, F No 301,302 and 303, 3rd Floor, Solitire Plaza, Behind lmage lospitql,^{Aqeelpgt,Hyderabad 500073 Tetangana State} 2. One CC to Sri R Sridhar Advocate [OPUC] J- Two CD Copies

¶49

MBC SW One Spare Copyk

¶50

HIGH COURT

¶51

DATED: 2110412022

¶52

'l-t'
I (
/r
,::.
l0I t{i}: ?i't?
ORDER

¶53

WP.No.16959 of 2022

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

ar'

Sri Ramreddy Mekala v. Piramal Captial and Housing Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramreddy Mekala v. Piramal Captial and Housing Finance

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

Ch.Srinivas Deepak Vs Chilukuri Jyotsna ,Kondapalli Jyotsna and anothers

M/s Navanatha Educational Society Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited Vs State of Telangana

Chinta Venkateshwarlu and 2 others Vs State Bank of India

Tummala Anitha Vs Union Bank of India

M/s Srinivas Bangaramma Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Bank of India