Disposed

M/s Coverit Falir v. M/s Indusland Bank Limited

Telangana HC3 Feb 2022WP/5983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging possession notices under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court held that Section 17 provides an adequate alternative remedy. Petitioners were directed to file a securitisation application and deposit 10% dues within 30 days to stay recovery proceedings; otherwise, the notices remain operative.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions to file an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and deposit 10% of dues within 30 days to stay the possession notice.

M/s Coverit Falir Vs M/s Indusland Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(S pecia I Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY. THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PR ESE NT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5983 OF 2022

¶8

Between

¶9

l\ills Coverit Falir, Rept., by its Managing Partner, Mr. Hasan Bin Hamza, S/o Late Abdullah Ahmad Bin Hamza, Aged about 64 years, Occ Business, Fyo H,No. 12-2330/3/8, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

l\4/s lndusland Bank Limited, Rept., by its Authorized Officer, Financial Restructuring and Reconstruction Group, Regional Office Hyderabad 1-10-72,3td Floor, Ashoka Janardhan Chambers, Begumpet, Hyderabad-50001 6.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

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, more^particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, a)^{To declare the} action of the respondent herein in issuing notice daled 22-12-2021 under Section¹³ (4) of SARFAESI Act without considering the reply/ objection dated 0'1-10-2021 as violation of Section 13 (3-A) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of^petitioners fundamental right, against^principle of natural lustice. b)^to declare the action of the respondent herein in issuing notice under^{Section13(2)of} SARFAESI Act dated 06-08-2021 in a vague manner, in^violation of^{lr,4asterCircular} daled 01-11-2021 issued by Reserve Bank of lndia as highly^{illegal,arbitrary,} violation of Article^'14 and 21 of the Constilution of lndia and^{against principle of} natural^justice c) In consequence set aside^notice under Section¹³⁽²⁾ ol^SARFAESI Act dated 06-08-2021 and notice daled 22-12-2021 under Section 13^{(4) of} SARFAESI-Act issued by respondent^herein d)^Direct the^{respondent bank to pay} Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation / damages caused^{to the petitioner firm.}

¶15

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶16

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto stayall} further proceedings^pursuance to Section 13^{(4) noticedated22-12-202'lunder the} provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act 2002^{pending disposal of the main writ petition.}

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under Section 15'l CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe pleasedto call for} the entire record^{notice underSection 13(2)of SARFAESI Actdated 06-08-2021and} nolice dated 22-12-2021^{under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESIAct pendingdisposal of} the main writ^petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI.MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent :^NONEAPPEARED

¶21

The Court made the following^ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶25

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION N o.5983 0F 2022

¶29

ORDER: (Per thc Hon'ble Sri .rustice Ula) Bhuyan)

¶30

Heard Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmecl Baig, learned counsel for the petitione r.

¶31

Petitioner had availed financial assistance from respondent M/s.lndusland Bank Limited by way of overdraft. However, alleging default by the petitioner in repayment, respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the "SARFAESI Act").

¶32

In this connection, notice under Section i3(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner on 06.08.2021 to which petitioner had filed objection. According to the petitioner, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, respondent issued possession notice under Section 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act on 22.12.2021.

¶33

Aggrieved, present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶34

¶35

From a perusal of the possession notice we find that the outstanding dues of the petitioncr is Rs. 1,32,68,903.00 as on 22.12.2021 with lurther interest.

¶36

Upon due consideration, we are of the view that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act petitioner has^got an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the^{jurisdictional} Debts Recovery Tribunal against action taken by^{the secured} creditor under Section 13(4) of the^{SARFAESIAct. Therefore, we}

¶37

¶38

UB,J & PSS,J w.P.NO.5983 0F 2022 (Per UB,J)

¶39

¶40

are of the view that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶41

If the petitioner files such application within a period of thirty (3O) days from today and further deposits lSZo of the outstanding dues wit]1 the iespondent within the aforesaid period of thirty (30) days, we direct the respondent not to take further steps pursuant to the possession notice dated 22.12.2021. In any view, the impugned possession notice would be subject to outcome of such securitisation application which may be filed by the petitioner.

¶42

However, if there is dcfault on thc part of the petitioner either in filing the applicatir.rn or in payitrg 15,2, ol the outstanding dues as above, it would be open to the respondent to take such action for recovery of dues as may be permissible in law.

¶43

Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand

¶45

closed.

¶46

SD/.V.SUOHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1' The Authorized officer. M/s rndusrand Bank Limited, Financiar Restructuring and Reconstruction Grouo. Reoionat Omce f-f voeTaoai-i_rc7)",'iro Ftoor, Ashoka -^{JanardhanChamberi, Begiumpet,nvOerjOao_s-oOOio.- '-''} ? 9n" Q9^{to sRl.MrRZArur5nn'nrilaEo} bXG, ni"".Ji" topuct 3. Two CD Copies 4. One spare copy

SA BS $>

<br>

HIGH COURT

OATEO:0310212022

"( H e T,4 ?-4:
o^
o 25 rEB 2022
\r-
*
.D+ a

ORDER

WP.No.5983 of 2022

OISPOSING OF THE W,P

wtTHOUT COSTS.

(6<br>Y,,u* ,,,
f' 2..\X

M/s Coverit Falir v. M/s Indusland Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Coverit Falir v. M/s Indusland Bank Limited

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

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

Momin Mahaboob Liaquath Ali Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. and 5 Others

A. Murali Mukund Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

A. Murali Mukund Vs The State of Telangana