Dismissed

Boppana Polymers a proprietor concern and another v. Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank)

Telangana HC10 Jun 2022WP/25005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's action to take physical possession of mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that petitioners had exhausted their statutory remedy under Section 17 and failed to comply with Tribunal conditions.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Boppana Polymers a proprietor concern and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25005 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Boppana Polymers a proprietor concern, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Boppana Venkateswar Rao, Office at Plot No. 53, IDA lndustrial Park. Bhuvanagiri Yadadri District, Telangana - 508'1 16. Or Plot No. 2812, Opp. CIPET Hostel, Phase-ll Extension, IDA, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District -500051 .

¶10

Smt. Gayathri Smrithi, Wo Boppana Venkateswar Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Plot No. 501 , Sri Srinivasa Nilayam, Vasavi Colony, Road No.1/A, R.K.Puram Nagar. Ashta Laxmi Temple, Kothapet, Hyderabad - 500035.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Union Bank of lndia, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank), Cherlpally Branch, Plot No. 29, NEAR EC Nagar Phase -ll, IDA Cherlapally, Hyderabad -500051. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. declaring the action of the respondent in issuing notice Dt. 3010512022 for taking physical possession of property of Land and Building situated at Shop No. 1-61 , Block No.^'l , Survey No. 1065,^'1066, Kodada admeasuring 185.30 Sq. Yards through Advocate-Commissioner is bad, arbitrary, illegal, void and against the principles of natural^justice and also violation of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest AcI, 2002 and Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the measures initiated by the respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the mortgaged property.

¶16

I.A.NO:1 OF i'.O22

¶17

Petition Under Section 1 5'1 CPC praying that in the ci'cumstances stated in the affklavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^grant stay for all further proceedings in^pursuance of Vacate l.lotice Dt. 3010512022 issued by Advocak Commissioner under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as per the orders pas sed in Crl.M.P.No. 6012022 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda for taking physical possession of Land and Building situated at Shop No. 1-61, Block No.1, Survey No.^-065, 1066, Kodada admeasuring 185.3 ) Sq. Yards until^pending disposal of the rvrit^petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Pe itioners : SRI.B.N.SWAMIJI

¶19

Counsel for the Re;pondent : SRI.SETHU MADHAVA RAO

¶20

The Court made th,r following ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2SOOS of 2022

¶26

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhugan)

¶27

Heard Mr. B.N.Swamiji, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sethu Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

By filing this petition under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged legality and validity of the notice dated 3O.O5.2O22 issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking over physical possession of the schedule property, follor.r,ing warrant issued by the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2022.

¶29

From the materials on record, we find that petitioners had availed loan from the respondent but for various reasons defaulted in repayment. As a result, respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation

¶30

2 LTB, J& S1[, J W.P.No.25OO5 of 2O22

¶31

and Reconr truction of Financial Assets and Ilnforcement of Securit_v In erest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'liARF AESI ActJ. When E-auction notice dated O5.O3.2O22 rr.,as issued by the respondent, pet-itioners filed securitisati( n application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad (Tribunal), 'vhich has been registered as S.A.l'lc'.56 of 2022. An interloc rtory application for stay was also filed being I.A.No.2O2 )f 2022. Tribunal passed docket order dated 28.03.2022 permitting the respondent to go ahead with the auction of the schedule property but rr:strained the respondent iom confirming the sale in favour of the highest bidder subjrct to the condition that petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.36,OO 0OO/- within two (02) weeks frorn 28.03.2022 and a furth,:r sum of Rs.36,OO,OOO/- within trvo (02) weeks thereafter, c arifying that in the event of failure of compliance of the above condition by the petitioners, respotrdent would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance wrtl-r law, which , would howe^rer be subject to outcome of the securitisation applicat ion.

¶32

3 UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25OO5 of 2O22

¶33

1 I

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the docket order was passed on 28.O3.2022, petitioners had submitted One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal to the respondent, which was being considered. For that purpose, petitioners had deposited Rs. 10,O0,000/- in cash and submitted cheque for a further amount of Rs.25,OO,000/-. While the matter rested thus, respondent proceeded further and took steps under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, whereafter warrant was issued by the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On the strength of the warrant, Advocate Commissioner issued the impugned notice dated 30.o5.2022.

¶35

On a query by the Court as to whether petitioners have complied with the docket order dated 28.03.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the OTS proposal of the petitioners was being favourably considered by the respondent, the amounts directed to be paid by the Tribunal were not paid. He submits that even now if the

¶36

(]B,J&SN,J W.P.lto.25OO5 of 2022

¶37

¶38

Court dire,:ts petitioners to make payment ol 15% of the outstandlnt I clues, petitioners would pay the sanle.

¶39

('. -earned^{counsel for the respondentsultmits that} thougtr th< respondent had initially considered the OTS proposal ol the petitioner, the same has now treen cancelled. He sutrmits that the cheque for Rs.25,O0,000/- submitted by the petition :rs with the respondent has been dishonoured on ttre grc,und of inadequate fund. That is the r,:etson why the OTS propos rl has been cancelled.

¶40

7 . I irnce petitioners have a,lready availed their statutory reredy under section 17 of the SAFIFAESI Act by filing S.A.NI .56 of 2022, we are not inclined tc entertain the u.rit pe -ition. Further, it is evident that petitioners have not complied wi th the conditional order of the Tribunal d:rted 28.03.2022 br. not paying a single penny thc,ugh Tribunal had di-ecte I the petitioners to deposit totz.l amount of Rs.72,0O,0Ot)/- (in two installments of Rs.36,O(),()OO/- each), further clarilying that if there was failure by the petitioners in making sucl payment, respondent Bank rvoulc re at liberty

¶41

J UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25O05 of 2O22

¶42

¶43

to proceed further in accordance with law. Since petitioners have failed to comply with the condition imposed by the Tribunal, as per liberty granted by the Tribunal, respondent has proceeded ahead in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. No fault can be found with such approach by the respondent. That apart, Tribunal has clarilied that action of the respondent would be subject to outcome of S.A.No.56 of 2022.

¶44

B. That being the position, u,e do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition.

¶45