Dismissed

Smt Mende Sathamma v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022WP/36116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a loan defaulting borrower challenging a SARFAESI Act demand notice and seeking loan restructuring. The court held that the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding earlier accepted litigation and thus dismissed the plea for additional relief while recalling the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Previous interim order recalling the demand proceedings recalled. Petitioner to approach Section 17 remedy of SARFAESI Act.

Smt Mende Sathamma Vs State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36116 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Mende Sathamma, Wo. Sri tr/ Sathaiah, Aged. 40^years, Occ. Private Employee, H.No.6-130/1, Bavani Nagar, Chityal Town, Nalgonda- 508114. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State Bank of lndia, Rep by the Authorized Officer, Urumdla Branch, Nalgonda District.

¶11

..RESPONDENT

¶12

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 a Writ, order or orders, direction or more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the measures taken by the respondent bank in not accepting the OTS proposal and not restructuring the loan account and claiming the excessive amount more than the actual amount due in demand notice issued U/s.'13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 0210112021 by violating the provisions of SARFAESI Act, under Rule.8(6) is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, 21 , and 300(A) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent to set aside the Sale notice issued Under Rule 8(6) of Security Enforcement lnterest Rules,2002 and also direct the respondents to accept either the OTS proposal or to restructure the Ioan account to repay the remaining balance amount and also direct the respondents not to take the physical possession till.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶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 the proceedings in pursuant to the Sale Notice dated^'1611 112021 UlR.8(6) of Security enforcement of interest rules, 2002.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. SRINIVAS GANGISHETTI

¶16

Gounsel forthe Respondent: SRl. N MEHER PRASAD, SC FOR SBI

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HOI(OURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JT'STICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶19

\l RIT PETITION No.361 1 6 ot 2027

¶20

98DER:^{(Per Hon'ble Si Justice Ujjal Bhugan)}

¶21

Heard \4r. Gangisheety Srinivas, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr.Meher Prasad, learned counsel for the respondc nt-State Bank of India.

¶22

By filing this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of demand notice clated O2.Ol.2O2l issued by the respondent under Section 13(2 ) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security irrterest Act, 2O02 (briefl1 referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act'). 3. F'rom a perusal of the above notice, it is seen a that petiti,;ner was granted housing loan of Rs.4,47,500.00 by the respondent, for which the schedule property lrra s mortgaged by the petitioner to the respondent by way of dr:posit of title deeds. As per the demand notice, for default rrn the part of the petitioner, the loan account was classilied as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on

¶23

I I

¶24

--UB,.I&SN.] \.p 16ll6 201I

¶25

28.02.2017. Thereafter, a demand notice came to be issued on O2.OI.2O2 I under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding dues of Rs.6,91,376.00 as on 02.O1.2021 . The said demar-rd notice has been challenged on varlous grounds, including violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules framed thereunder. Considering the fact that petitioner is a lady working in a kirana shop, this Court passed an order on 24.12.2021 to the effect that petitioner should not be dispossessed from her residential premises

¶26

On 04.O2.2022 Mr.Meher Prasad, learned

¶27

counsel for the respondent was requested to look into the matter and seek instructions so that an amicable ' settlement could be reached securing the interest of both the sides. Interim order passed by this Court on 24.12.2021 has since been continued.

¶28

¶29

Today, Mr. Meher Prasad submits that earlier petitioner had approached this court regarding the same ioan account by filing W.P.No.15395 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated OA.O7.2O2|

¶30

L l|..r&sN..l ,\p lf,1 lrr lotl

¶31

a I

¶32

obserl'ing thirt petitioner had adequate and elficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Accordinglv. petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative re medy.

¶33

The factum of filing of W.P.No.15395 of 202 1 has been suppressed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, so also the order passed by this Court in the said u,rit petition tn OB.O7 .2021 .

¶34

T-rat apart, Mr.Meher Prasad submits that though this :ourt had directed the parties to u'ork out an amicable settlement vide the order dated 04.O2.2O22, petitioner h:td approached the respondent-State Bank of India only on 11.O4.2022.

¶35

At this stage, a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how much amount she is in a position t() pay and within how much time. In reply to said query, earned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will pay tota-l of Rs.5,0O,0O0.OO within a period of six (6) montl'rs.

¶36

In view of the fact that there is suppression of material fac ts rvith this Court directing the petitioner to

¶37

t.il|.-t&sN..l \w 16li6 l0ll

¶38

¶39

¶40

avail the alternative remedy in the earlier round of litigation, u,e leel that the sympathy expressed by this Court appears to be misplaced. Since petitioner has already been granted liberty to avail alternative remedy, we are of the view that no additional/ further order is called for in the present proceeding. Petitioner may still avail her alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, subject to limitation.

¶41

Subject to the above, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Interim order passed earlier is recalled.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications

¶44

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

¶45

SD/-B.SAWAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶46

SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

1 . One CC to^{Sri. Srinivas Gangishetti' Advocate[OPUC]} 2. 6;; A^{io iri. r.r Meher Praiad, sc for sBl toPUCl} 3. Two CD^CoPies. + ' o*Spte q1' PM GJP

¶49

¶50

HIGH COURT DATED:1810412022

¶51

E srAIg.)<br>/k i_)
[ ] Bir ?il2

¶52

ORDER

¶53

WP.No.36116 of 2021

¶54

Dismissing the WP Without costs.

¶55

@*€' w- ,it^Y-

Smt Mende Sathamma v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mende Sathamma v. State 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

P. PadmavathI Vs Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt.B.Suneetha Vs Union Bank of India

Vemula Ravi Kumar Vs Reliance Home Finance Ltd.

Vyshnavi Sai Lakshmi Vs The Union India and 2 others

M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner (St) Grade-I and 3 others

M/s Navanatha Educational Society Vs The Income Tax Officer