Disposed

Yalamanchalli Sai Baba v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC2 Feb 2022WP/5575/2022

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, 2002. The writ petition challenging a vacation notice to take physical possession of secured property was disposed of, with the condition that the petitioner must file a securitization application and deposit 15% of dues with the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directs petitioner to file application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act and deposit 15% dues within 30 days; otherwise proceeding with possession. Writ disposed of.

Yalamanchalli Sai Baba Vs Jm Financial Asset… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE^{SECONDDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEP. SREE SUDHA}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO^{:5575OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Yalamanchalli sai Baba,^{s/o YMG Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 58 y-ears, Proprietor of} i/i;.'3;i^{(;ib;# voriei,-n-loFtit Noisote,Mahavee-rResidencv,Phase No 3' Road} No. 82. Jubileee^{Hills,Hyderabad - 500 033.}

¶8

...'ETIT'ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

l.JMFinancialAssetReconstructioncompany|vtLld,Havingitsregistero-A^ Oii# ;i No.7, Cnergy,^{Appasahed Marathe Marg-.Prabhadevi' Mumbar-40u} 025,BranchOfficeat-40/lA,4thFloor,BasaplaComolex'LaveleeKoao' eZnoirore -560 OO1, nbiinq^{in iis capa'city as irustee bf JMFARC-UCOBank-} nlirdn zot+ Trust Rep.^{bvlts AuthorisedOfficer.}

¶11

z. rvi6. uco^{aan[, iuuirEetriiiieianch, ptot No. 4-50, Road No.'t0, Jubilee Hills,} - Hyderabad - 5OO 033, Rep. by its Authorised Officer'

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto issue an appropriate^{writ, order or directionmore particularlyone in the natureof writ} of Mandamus declaring^{measures of the 1"t respondent under the provisionsof the} SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2 taking physical possession through the Advocate} Commissionernoticedatedls.ol.2022toVacatethescheduleofpropertyi.e'' residential Flat^{No.4-B in fourthfloor in Block No.1 of Shangrila Apartmentsbearing} Ir/unicipal No.B-2-269i3^{of Survey No.129/59having plinth area of 2769 sq ft '} inclusive of common^{area together with undivided share of land 104 sq yds , out of} 4784 sq.^yds., situated^{at Road No.2, BaniaraHills, Hyderabad in pursuance of the} Advocate commissioner^{warrantdaled 17.12.2021issuedby the chief Metropolitan} Magistrate at^{Hyderabad in Crl,M.PNo'gBt2O21 contrary to the provisions of the} section 14 of Act^{in pursuance of impugned Advocatecommissioner warrantdual} dated 17.12.2021^{issued in crl.M.P.No.98l2O21on the file of the cMM at Hyderabad} upon invalid/improper^{affidavit of Pt Respondentu/s 14 of SARFAESIAct without} disclosing latest material^{factsas contemplated under Clause(b) proviso withSub} clause ito ix on the^{basis of the staled Possession Noticedated12.O7.2012 and} Demand Notice 07.05.2012^{claimedto be issued by the 2nd respondent Bankas null} and void and consequently^{declarethat the Possession Noticedated 12.07.2012 and} the Demand Notice^{07.05.2012by the 2nd respondent Bank is null and void and set} aside the same

il2ll

lA NO: 1

Petition under se, tion 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support :f the^{petition, the High courtmaybe pleased to stay of all} further proceedings inclr ding taking^{physical possession of the secured propertyi.e,} residential Flat No.4-B in^{fourth floorin Block No.1 of Shangrila Apartmentsin the} premises bearing Muni, ipal No. 8-2-26913 of^{Sy. No.129/59 having plinth areaof} 2769 sq. ft., inclusive ol common^{area together with proportionate undivided shareof} land admeasuring 104 :^{q. yds., out of 4784 sq yds., situated at Road No.2, Banjara} Hills, Hyderabad throug I advocate^{commissioner's noticedt 18.01.2022 for vacate} the schedule of^{proper y in pursuancethe Advocate CommissionerWarrant dated} 17.12.2021 issued by tl':e CMM,^{at Hyderabad in Crl M P No 98/2021 contrary to the} provisions of the Secti rn 14 of Act in^pursuance of^{the PossessionNotice dated} 12.07.2012 and DemarJ^{Notice 07.05.2021 pending the disposalof the above writ} Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitio rer: SRl.^V.V.RAMANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respo rdents: NONE^APPEARED

¶21

The Court made the fo lowing: ORDER

¶22

\ I

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶24

¶25

HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶26

W.P.No.5575 of2022

¶27

Order: (Per Hot'bte Si ln.rti'e IJjjat Bhryatt)

¶28

Fleard IvIr. V.V.Ramana, leamed counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

This petition challenges the legality and validity of vacation notice dated 18.il.2A22, issued by the Advocate-Commissioner to the petitioner to hand over phlnical possession of the schedule property. 3. It appears that petitioner had availed credit facilities from respondent No.2, but defaulted in repapnent for which, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing fuset (I\IP,{) whereafter, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and fuconstruction of Financial fusets and Enforcement of Security Interest Lct,2002 (for shon 'the SARFAESI Act). In this connection, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act^{q/as issued} by respondent No.2 to the petitioner on 07.a5.2a21 as per^which, the outstanding dues was quantilied at Rs.5,12,49,702.00^as on^{3 1.03.2aD.} 4 It funher appears that respondent No.2 has carried forward the matter and thereafter, assigned recovery of dues to respondent No.1, which is an asset reconstnrction company. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who passed order dated over 17.72.2021 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking

I I

possession of^'he schedule propeny. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner is ued the impugned notice dated 18.01.2C22.

¶34

After hear Lng learned counsel for the petitioner and on due consideration, w ) are of the view that petitioner has got an adequate and efficacious a remative remedy under Secdon L7 of the SARFAESI Act' If the petiti rner files a securitization application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribur al, within a period of thirty dap lrom today and funher deposits l5o/o of the outstanding dues wirhin the aforesaid period of th.irq, < ap, respondents shall not take funher steps pursuant to the vacation notice dated l,B.Al.2a22. However, if there is any defa.lt on the p ut of the petitioner either in filing the securitisation application or in making rhe deposit as above, it would be open to the respondents to ta {e action in accordance with iaw.

¶35

Vrit Petit on is, accordingly, disposed of. Related interim

¶36

application is als< disposed of.

¶37

No costs.

¶38

SD/.P.PADMAI'IABHA REDDY ASSISTAhIT REGISTRAR

¶39

,TRUE COPY//

¶40

SiECTION OFFICER

¶41

To, 1. The Authorised⁽ fficer, JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd., Having its registe'ed Office at No.7, Cnqrgy, Appasahed Marathe Mlrg, Prabhadevi, Mun bai -400 025, Branch Office araOltn, 4th Floor, BasSipa C.9f pl_el,.lqv_elq ' Road, Bangalore -560 001, Acting in its capacity as iiustee of JIVFARC-UCO B rnk -March 2014.

¶42

1. The Authorised⁽ fficer, M/s. UCO Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Plot NO. 4S0, Road No,10, Jub ee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶43

One CC to Sri V^y'. Ramana Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy CHR BS

';--

HIGH COURT

DATED:02102121t22

ORDER

W.P.No.5575 o12022

e TArE
i
/^q
e
c 2m2 t
i tB
of,o 1 5 I
*
D

¶50

DISPOSING OT THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS TS

¶51

@ )

Yalamanchalli Sai Baba v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yalamanchalli Sai Baba v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/s Disha Hotels Vs Telangana State Financial Corporation

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

Ms. Elizabeth Rani Vs Union Bank of India

Maraboina Ajay Kumar Vs Union Bank of India

M/s a. Krishna yadav Khowa Merchant and 2 Others Vs M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited

M/s N Shine Industries Vs Bank of Baroda