Allowed

Smt.B.Suneetha v. Union Bank of India

Telangana HC13 Apr 2022WP/18833/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court considered a writ petition challenging a notice for physical possession under SARFAESI Act by Union Bank of India. Court granted stay on specific account upon deposit of 15% dues. Filed before DRT. Other accounts still subject to bank action. Disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Stay on proceeding for physical possession of secured property pending disposal; petitioner to deposit 15% of dues within 30 days.

Smt.B.Suneetha Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH 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: 18833 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Smt.B.Suneetha, W/o.B.Surender Reddy, Aged 39 years, occ. Housewife, R/o.Flat No.303, Balaji Heights, Road No.4, Satyanarayana Colony, Nagaram, Ranga Reddy Dist.,500 083.

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Union Bank of lndia, Plot No.29, Near EC Nagar Phase-ll, IDA Cherlapally, R.R.Dist., Hyderabad-S00 051, Rep.by its Authorized Officer.

¶11

.RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent bank in trying to take physical possession of the secured property through the Advocate Commissioner Notice dt.29.03.2022, vide Warrant dt.17 .02.2022 issued by the Chief N4etropolitan [,4agistrate, Cyberabad, at L,B.Nagar, R.R.Dist., in Crl.lr/P No.6312022, pursuant to the Possession Notice dt.08.06.2020 issued under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act by the respondent bank, as illegal and arbitrary, unjust, violation of^principles of natural^justice and also violation of provisions of SARFAESI Act and consequently set aside the same

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

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 stay all further proceedings of the respondent bank in trying to take physical possession of secured property through the Advocate Commissioner Notice d1.29.03.2022, vide Warrant di.17.02.2022 issued by the Chief Metropolitan

¶15

¶16

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, R.R.Dist., in Crl.MP No.63/2022, pursuant to the Possession Notice dt.08.06.2020 issued under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, in the interest of Justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIDHAR REDDY TALASANI

¶18

Counsel for Respondent: SRI SETHU MADHAVA RAO

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.18833 of 2022

¶25

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble Sn Jusfice Ujjal Bhugan)

¶26

Heard Mr. T.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel^{for the} petitioner and Mr. Sethu Madhava Rao, learned^counselfor the respondent Union Bank^{of India.}

¶27

Challenge made in this writ^{petitionis to the} notice dated 29.O3.2022 issued by the^Advocate Commissioner calling upon the^{petitionerto hand over} vacant physical possession of the schedule^property.

¶28

Petitioner as the borrower of respondent^had defaulted in repayment, for which^{respondent initiated} proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction^of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security^InterestAct, 2002^(briefly referred to hereinaJter^{as the 'SARFAESIActJ.} After the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Cyberabad,had} issued wa-rrant under Section 14 of the^{SARFAESI Act,}

¶29

¶30

¶31

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.18833 of 2022

¶32

impugned notice came to be issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶33

It is submitted that petitioner has already filed securitisation application under Section lZ of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal_ll, Hyderabad (Tribunal), which has been numbered as S.A(I.R).No.39 1 of 2022.

¶34

From the materials on record, u,e find that outstanding dues of the petitioner has been quantified at Rs. 18,56,599.38 as on 08.06.2020.

¶35

Since petitioner has availed her statutory remedy, we are of the view that she should pursue her remedy. Further, if the petitioner deposits 15% of the outstanding dues as on today within a period of 30 days from today, respondent shall not proceed further against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Advocate Commissioner. However, if there is any default by the petitioner, it would be open to the

¶36

¶37

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.18833 of 2022

¶38

¶39

respondent to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of dues.

¶40

7 " At this stage, learned counsel for the

¶41

respondent submits that there are other loan accounts of the petitioner, in respect of which respondent has^already initiated action under the SARFAESI Act.

¶42

B. We make it clear that this stay order^is applicable only to the loan account relatable to the^notice dated 29.03.2022 of the Advocate Commissioner.

¶43

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

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications

¶45

pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, sha1l stand closed.

¶46

¶47

as s r s ra r.r?D{I3i!l1{1* //rRUE COPY// (iD SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

t. The Authorized Officer, Uni-on Bank of lndia, Plot No.29, Near EC Nagar Phase-ll, IDA Cherlapally, R.R.Dist., Hyderabad-500 051. 2. One CC to Sri Sridhar Reddy Talasani Advocate IOPUCI J. One CC to Sri Sethu [MadhaVa Rao, Advocate (OirUC) 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy [/BC IVIVA

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310412022

/61'fd<br>({ 14 JUL zou? j)
==*r/
ORDER

¶54

WP.No.18833 of 2022

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

@4"8 fu--a$Vr-

Smt.B.Suneetha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.B.Suneetha v. Union Bank of India

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

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited Vs Naveen Kondal Nalla and another

Sri.Mohammad Saleem Vs Bank of Baroda

M/s Shanthi Nikethan Educational Society , Shanthi Nikethan School Vs Indian Overseas Bank

P. PadmavathI Vs Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

Vemula Ravi Kumar Vs Reliance Home Finance Ltd.

Sri. V.R. Munuswamy Naidu Vs The State Bank of India