The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the bank's possession notice. The court held that the petitioner was not connected to the loan and refused leave to withdraw the petition, dismissing it with costs.
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
d-
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 18973 OF 2022
Between:
Vyshnavi Sai Lakshmi, W/o B Siva Prathyush, Age-30years, Occ-House Wife, R/o H.No.6-8-1017, Flat No. 504, My Home Apartment , WC-Tirupathi chittoor District Andhra Pradesh
...pETrroNER
AND
...RESP.NDENT'
Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction, moreparticular, onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actionof the Respondent-Bankin trying to take the physicalpossession of Petitionerspropertyin Sy.No.719/1, Residential house andplot situated in Padmavathinagar,Mutyalareddypally Panchayat, Tirupathi Revenue Village ChittoorDistrict,Andhra Pradesh,even though S.A,l.R. No. 41 1 o'f 2022 on the file of Honble DRT-ll,HyderabadDated. 12-04-2022 which is pending for adjudication due to absenceof the Presiding Officer, as illegal, arbitrary and voidin the eye oflaw and by directing the Respondent bank not to takephysical possession as well assale of the property of the petitioner and consequently direct the HonbleDRT to adjudicate the matter expeditiously by considering the merits in S.A.l.R.No.411 ol 2022,
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
;
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleasedto stay of all furtherproceeding including takingphysical possession along with sale of the property of petitioners situated in Sy.No.719/1, Residential house,plot situated in Padmavathinagar, Mutyalareddypally Panchayat, Tirupathi Revenue Village ,Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh inpursuance of thepossession notice dated 30-11-2021
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO(ASSGI)
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: ---
The Court made the following: ORDER
;
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJALBHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICESUREPALLINANDA
WRIT PETITION No. 18973 of 2022
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Si JusticeUjjal Bhugan)
Heard Mr.Ch.Venkat Raman, learnedcounselfor the petitioner and Mr. B.Mukherjee,learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.N.RajeshwarRao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India forrespondentNo. 1.
I t
2 UB,J & SN,J w_18973 -2022
Section 13(a) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securitl,' Intere st Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act'). From the said notice, it is seen that earlier demand notice under Section l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act r.r,as issued to the borrower namely Jacob Jayaraj. My sister Justice Nanda has pointed out that in the English translation many facts mentioned in the original notice under Section 1 3 (4) in Telugu have been omitted. In the original notice, it is mentioned that outstanding dues is Rs.64,65,139.00 as on O4.O9.2O21. We also find that relevant facts have not been stated in the writ petition. However, from whatever material that has been placed on record, it is seen that notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on O4.O9.2O21. If that be so, the loan was obtained prior to 04.09.2021.
\
UB,J & SN,J wp_I8973 2022
shail, after receipt of notice underSection 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, transfer by way ofsale, lease or otherwise any of the secured assetsreferred toin the notice, without prior written consent of the securedcreditor.
7 . In the course of hearing, thisCourt had put a query to learned counsel for thepetitioner as to whether petitioner is willing to pay 15% of the outstandingdues. In reply, learned counsel for thepetitioner submitsthat since petitioner is in no way connectedwith the loan, she cannot make any such payment.However, in paragraph9 of the writ affidavit, the follovyingsubmissionshave been made:
"l humbly submit that the respondentbank has not follorved the guidelines ofRBI in classifyingthe loan account as NPA by 26.O8.2021 isillegal, against to asset classification norms by the RBI.Furtherthe secured creditor is not entitled toinvoke the provisionsof SARFAESI Act unless the accountwhich was classified as NPA is also identified as a substandard / doubtful/1oss asset ofthe bank as per tlle asset classification norms.As per the circulars of RBI to classify an account as NPAand also a sub-standard -
\
{
UI].J & SN.J \,p 13973 :012
asset, the account should be in NPA category for a perlod of 12 months from the date of classifying the sarne as NPA. A perusal of statement of account (copy fi1ed herewith) also supports the plea of the applicants that the account is not an NPA account. As such it is submitted that the secured creditor has illegally classified the account as NPA and a-1so illegally invoked the provisions of Section 2 (o) of the Act (amended as per "Orders dt.OS.O 1.2O 12 in I.A.No.751l20lll."
t I
t-
UB,J &SN,J w_189732022
f
)
i 1. Accordingly,the Writ Petition is dismissedwith cost ofRs.25,OOO/- (RupeesTwentyFive Thousand only) to be depositedwithin thirty (30) days beforethe Telangana State LegalServicesAuthorityat Hyderabad'
pending, ifany, in this Writ Petition' shall stand closed'
MEMORANDUMOF COSTS
W.P.NO.189730F 2022 Rs.Ps.
Costs Qua n tifiedby Hon'ble Court(That r-ie -Fetitio er herein is directed [o pay "oltsoi ns.zs 000/- (Rupees TwentyFive i-nirsanO Onlv)in favourof the Telangana si"ii-" [uqit"services Authorityal. Iio*EtuouJiritr',in30 davsfrom the date of order.
TOTAL
25,000-00
25,000-00
SD/.K.ONESIM DEPUTYREGIST
,TRUE COPY//
SECTION FFICER
To, 1 The Secretary,Telangana-State Legal Servic-es Authority at Hyderabad 2 o.irtCtiisiich Veit<atRaman Advoc-ate [oPUC]. ^- 3 one cc to SriNamavarap' H;j;t';;;H"-olA"s-is1'antsolicitor General (oPUC) 4. Two CDCoPies One SPareCoPY IVBC BS
q
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1810412022
1 H E S T,4 €.
ir.
c
't- (
d '11 JttL 2UT1 Z
-<br>-a+
,)C s'F
ORDER
WP.No.18973 ot 2022
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITH COSTS
@4'3
*\r>r''
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner is unrelated to the loan and makes no concession to pay dues.
Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was invoked legally against an unrelated purchaser.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vyshnavi Sai Lakshmi
Union of India
State Bank of India Ltd
Ujjal Bhuyan
Surepalla Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
