Allowed

Mrs. Bharathi Pathakoti v. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., and another

Telangana HC4 Feb 2022WP/6283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy against the public notice issued by bankers or financial institutions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The court directed the petitioner to file a securitization application or deposit an amount before the concerned Regional Office within the prescribed period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned possession notice dated 11.01.2022 will be kept in abeyance subject to filing of securitization application or deposit as directed.

Mrs. Bharathi Pathakoti Vs Aditya Birla Housing… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

, l

¶2

Ar^{HYDE RABAD} H^{r G H c ou Rr'} " *, JI'5i,1 AT,t 3:' :'":,t),8f)$

¶3

F RI DAY^{r HEF ouB',x-'J+"?l,fttttiif "} TWO^{THOUSAI</sup>}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLESRI J.USTICEUJJAL BHUYAN} rHE^{HoNouRAB"t#%"'"t P'.REE suDHA}

¶6

PE N 6 F

¶7

Between: n:Sr:i ili8iL'"# '^{il:c 3li"} ".J:^{tf :,"'"TK:?,f} Hli;,3X.ii1'H'Xfl\T!'',,Yl?,, 500^039' ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 tll*"?ffi^{+:[":'ra:,*,il!'#tii#']:'H##!#i'i.3ijrt"""}

¶10

2 l.:lfu.-' "'n[l;tu,ur:*l[iiiili'p,ffi[' sisnatory'

¶11

"'RESP.NDENTS

¶12

p et r o n u n d e r oⁿ 1", " ?r.u,,il,l["r fi :?;l,lii^"i"+'ff ft:,'fr^{'#, 1 [iT} iJ",H;'3::ff:iit"Jl"t[""i";ru;i;;iu;iv-"""^{il t!"-nuJl',,.o""edinssinitiaredbv} nr anv other^{appropriatewnt orde'} :l^{o':1'"Ji""^l'3::t'$iJJ;;;;"itot 'zozzin} i,::,::l :ru : I :Jx :,T'i" ff ff J:,'i ;["; " i ;' i;r -t xrff ii, ^ $":i:1^?if& " id1,iTJt",$;,v+it'ile.ffi^{ffi fi oJ%:!'d;Hi'Ji'il';;;;;ooiaineanv} p Ji,i'" " ",.'r,i" "n,. t, ", l' lil ll:,,lld ^nim' f ?:?" [ "3 : ff 1 [ ;J "3 t:i:-i?! R"Jor:l:l 3l.i?i.1ll',"rn*"Bi.i::i^{L i r'r'sui'riredbv the oetitioner' as irresar'} arbitrarv^{and violationof ,'o''io"'ito'i in-CrnEsrntt and'c,onsequently set aside the} Demand^{Noticedt.2010 2021'a"ni p"*"ttit^Noticedated 11'012022 ia respect ot} secured^{propertv,uno". s""ti5'.''"r;iiffi;i;i;i'ARFAESIAct and Rules'2002} respeclivelY.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF²⁰²²

¶14

Petition under^{Section 15'1CPC prayingthat in thecircumstancesstated in} further the affidavit^{proceedings filed in support of the} "t'i"tiono"nt "r^{in" i"tit'"I' itie} bank^ligh -pursuant to^Court,mev ihe^{be oleased} Possession^{to stay} Notice^all ;'i.;i:;i;;;;.;i"i^{rno",s!.ir-""" jil+l} "r^{saRrnesrAct in respect or secured} p ropertY.

¶15

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRl' SRI0HAR REDDYTALASANI}

¶16

Counsel for^{the Respondents:NONEAPPEARED}

¶17

The court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND HOIYOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶19

T TIONNo.628 of 20^.>.

¶20

ORDER! (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Lljjal Bhugan)

¶21

Heard Mr. Sridhar Reddy Talasani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

2 By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Consritution ot. India, petitioner seeks quashing of possession Notice datecl 11.01.2022 issued by respondent No.l uncler Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act, 2002 (tbr short 'the SARFAESI Act)

¶23

As per the impugned possession Notice the outstanding dues of the petitioner is Rs.24,12,180.74 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand One Hundred and Eighty and Seventv Four paise on\r) as on 11.IO.2O2I.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's late husband was the borrower and the loan account was duly insured with respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 has now repudiated the claim of petitioner for insurance cover by way of repaying the loan. Against this, petitioner has approached the jurisdictional consumer lorum.

¶25

Be that as it may, we are of the view that^{petitionerhasgot} an^{adequateand ef{icacious alternative remedv againstt1-re} ed^{PossessionNotrceof filing securitizationapplicatlon} Let^the imPugn (1)^{of Section17 o{ theSARFAESTAct} under^Sub-section

¶26

::::.:""""

¶27

peritioner^{irre such r"*:;"::} :j;:i-

¶28

aioresaid^{periodor thirry davs'}

¶29

;;;

¶30

:-":"-::": """'" respondent^{No lshallnot takefurther steps pursuant to the} impugned^{PossessionNodce datedllOl'2O22In any case' the} said^{nodcewould be subjectto outcomeof the securitizadon} appiication^{thatmay be filed by the petitioner' However' we make} it clear^{that if thereis any default on the part of the petitioner} either^{in filing the securitization application or in makingthe} deposit^{as directed above' respondent No 1 would be at iiberty to} proceed against^{the petitionerin accordancewith1aw'}

¶31

With the^{above direction'writ petition isdisposed of'} Miscellaneous^{applications,rf anv pendins'shall stand closQd-}

¶32

No costs.

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

SD/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR GD SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

One CC to SRl. SRIDHAR REDDY TALASANT Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

Two CD Cop^jes.

¶38

One Spare Copy,

BSw

.----

HIGH COURT

DATED:04t02t2022

-t t-t g siA ==:*<br>,i
oo) 2I ttB 2022' ' i

¶45

ORDER

¶46

WP.No.6283 of 2022

¶47

DISPOSING^{OF THE WP} WTHOUT^COSTS.

¶48

r.u"{(* W-r.u' tnV'

Mrs. Bharathi Pathakoti v. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Bharathi Pathakoti v. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., and another

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

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

M/s.Santosh Trading Company Vs The Kotak Mahindra Bank

M/s. Velagapudi Steels Limited. Vs Canara Bank (E Syndicate Bank)

Dr. M. v. Ramana Rao Vs Uco Bank and 2 Others