Disposed

M/s Disha Hotels v. Telangana State Financial Corporation

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WP/5119/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It directed the petitioner to file a securitisation application within 30 days and deposit 75% of outstanding dues to prevent further coercive steps by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file a securitisation application within 30 days and deposit 75% of outstanding dues; conditional stay on coercive steps.

M/s Disha Hotels Vs Telangana State Financial… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:5119 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s Disha Hotels, Partnership firm Rep by its partner, V. L. Narasimha Rao, Office at 61 138, plot no. 303, Sujatha apartments, Padmarao nagar, Secunderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Telangana State Financial Corporation, Rep by its Authorized Officer, Chirag Ali lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶11

Senior Branch Manager, Telangana State Financial Corporation, Ramachandrapuram branch, At Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the proceedings, dated 18.O1 .2022, under the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured assets of the Petitioner i.e., land admeasuring 968 sq. yards in Sy. No. 309/4, AA, E, EE at lsnapur V, Patancheru M, Medak District and land admeasuring 290 sq. yards in Sy. No. 309 at lsnapur V, Patancheru M, Medak District., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently set aside the^possession notice dated 18.01 .2022.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

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 pursuant the possession notice dated 18.0'1 .2022 issued by Respondent No. 1, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondents: M.HAMSA RAJ (SC FOR TSFC)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIryAN

¶22

AND

¶23

THE T ON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDI{A

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO,S119 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER: (Per th : Honble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶26

Heard Mr, Kowturu Pavan Kumar. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

By filing t lis petition under Article 226 of rhe Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 18.01.2022 issued by the first res,ondent under Section 13(a) of the Securitisation and Reconstru,:tion of Financial Assets and Bnforcement of Security Interes Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act).

¶28

From the materials on record, we find that petitioner had availed loan fror r the first respondent but delaulted in repayment. Initially, first re ipondent initiated action under Section 29 of the State Financial )orporation Act, 1951 and took over possession of the secured ass:t. At that stage, peritioner harl approached this Court b-y filing \ /.P.No.40505 of 20 18. A learned SingJe Judge of this Court, by t re final order dateti 24.02.20'20, disposed ol the Writ Petition t y directing the petitioner to su brnit a fresh representation t( the respondents for repayment ol loan amount in equal instalmen s as well as lbr restoration of the seize(l property_ In terms of the a bresaid order of this Court, petirioner represented before the respr,ndents but with the grievance that the seized properfy i.e. the hotel situated at Survey No.309, Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mar da.l, Sangareddy District, was yet to be handed over back to the petitioner, W.P.No.21 149 of 2O2O came to be filed

¶29

uB,J & PSS,J w.P.NO.sl 19 0F 2022 (Per UB,J)

¶30

¶31

before this Court. During the hearing on 25.17.2020, learned counsel representing the respondents stated before the Court that the respondents were ready to hand over possession of the hotel to the petitioner in a day or two. Recording such submission, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition vide the order dated 25.11.2020 by directing the respondents to hand over possession of the hotel back to the petitioner forthwith. While the possession of the hotel was handed over back to the petitioner, respondents initiated action under the SARFAESI Act. In this connection, respondents issued notice under Section 13(2) oi the SARFAESI Act on 1.9.10.2020 which was followed bv the impugned notice dated 18.O1,2022.

¶32

Without entering into the contentious issues raised by Iearned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, petitioner has got an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy of filing securitisation application before the^{jurisdictiona.l} Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶33

¶34

Accordingly, we direct that if securitisation application is filed by the petitioner within a period of thirty days from today and within the said period petitioner deposits 75o/o of the outstanding dues as per the demand notice issued by the respondents on I9.IO.2O2O, respondents shall not take further coercive steps against the petitioner. However, if there is any default on the part of the petitioner either in filing the securitisation application or in making the deposit as above, it would be open to the respondents to proceed iurther lor realization of its dues in accordance with law.

¶35

This disposes of the Writ Petition.

¶36

uB,J & Plts,J W.P.NO.5l19 0F 2022 (Per UB'J)

There she .1 be no order^{as to costs.}

¶45

Miscellan:ous applications, if^{any, pending,shallstand}

closed.

SDIM.MANJULA

ASSISTANT REGISTRAB

,TRUE COPY// ^vSECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

The Authorized c^{fficer, Telanganastate Financial corporation, chirag Ali lane,} Abids, Hyderaba(^.

¶53

Senior Branch Mi^{nager,Telangana State Financial Corporation,} - Ramachandrapul rm-branch, Ai Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District'

¶54

One CC to SRl.^{(OWTURU PAVAN KUMARAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶55

One CC to SRl.^{I I.HAMSA RAJ (SCFOR TSFC) Advocate[OPUC]}

¶56

Two CD CoPies.

¶57

One Spare Copy

NPJ

'"f

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10212)22

ORDER

WP.No.51'19 of 2022

IilE S;;', 't
a<br>'i, 22 FrF 2B?2
.i
:.*

¶66

DISPOSING Oi THE WP

¶67

WITHOUT COS TS.

M/s Disha Hotels v. Telangana State Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Disha Hotels v. Telangana State Financial Corporation

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

Banoth Ravi Kumar and 80 Others Vs The District Collector and 5 others

M/s. R.K.Distilleries Private Limited Vs The Additional commissioner of State Tax(Gr-1) and 4 others

M/s Aditya Global Infra Pvt. Limited Vs State Bank Of India

M/s.Gennex Laboratories Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) and 4 Others

Ms. Elizabeth Rani Vs Union Bank of India

Smt Nedunorri. Lavanya Vs The Authorized Officer