K.Gopal Rao Vs State Bank of India

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31757 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

t [..eopq] Rao S/o K.Pitchaiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ. poultry Business, R/o. 5-5, Raikal Village Et Post, F-rooq Nagar Mandat, Ranga Reddy District.'

¶9

1. Konedhina L-alitha @ Kunidena Lalitha, Wo. Gopal Rao, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Business,_Fl/o. D.No 5-6, Plot No.'16, Sy.No.402, Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

'l . State Bank of lndia, Rep. bv its Autho_rised Officer, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, D.No.1-8-563/i, tst Floor, Opp. Sandhya Theatre, RTC 'X' Roa<i, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad

¶13

The Branch Manager, SBl, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents Bank in not considering the Petitioner's Representation Dt. 02106/2025 with regard to the payment of balance payable amount under the Loan Account No.6213232273 under the Hypothecation Agreement (HO-1290) and Guaranteed Agreement (HO'1206) saying that in contemplation by misnaming the petitioner-2 i.e., Kunidena Lalitha instead of Konedhina Lalitha as per the records available with the Respondents are germane in nature to the subject property i.e. house situated at Plot No,16 admeasuring Ac.0-35 Gts., and land admeasuring Ac.0-30 Gts., respectively in Sy.No.402, Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Erstwhile Shadnagar Mandal, l\ilahaboobnagar District) and also without

¶16

following the due procedure as contemplated under the statutory provisions as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently issue a direction, directing the Respondents Bank herein to forthwith consider the Petitioner's Representation Dt. 02.06.2025 for necessary steps to be taken with regard to the settlement of payable balance amount under the Loan Account No.621323227 3 under the Hypothecation Agreement (HO1290) and Guaranteed Agreement (HO-l206).

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 issue a direction, directing the Respondents Bank herein to forthwith consider the Petitioner's Representation Dt. 02.o6.202s for necessary steps to be taken with regard to the settlement of payable balance amount under the Loan Account No.621323227 3 under the Hypothecation Agreement (HO-1290) and Guaranteed Agreement (Ho-l206) pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. VENKATA KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: --

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I i a

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶24

AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3 L757 of 2025

¶27

o4.L2.202s

¶28

Between:

¶29

K.Gopal Rao and another

¶30

.Petitioner

¶31

AND

¶32

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Stressecl Assets Recovery Branch,

¶33

D.No. 1-8-563/ 1, 1"t Floor, Opp:Sandh5rs Theatre, RTC X'Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and another

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ Petition is filed challenging rhe action of respondents Bank in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 02.06.2025 with regard to the payment of balance payable amount under the Loan Account under the Hypothecation Agreement and Guaranteed Agreement.

¶37

2

¶38

Heard Sri V.Venkata Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despile service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. Perused the record

¶39

Learned cc;unsel for the petitioners made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and requested this Court to direct respondents Bank to consider the petitioners' representation dated 02.06.2O25 as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents bank to cons:der the petitioners' representation dated 02.06.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with la'uv within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. No costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand ciosed. t

¶42

t

¶43

SD/.P. PO^{NNA KRISHNA} ANT^REGISTRAR

¶44

/TRUE^COPY/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

To 1. The Authorised^{Officer, Stressed} AssetsOpp. SandhYa nch, RTC State Bank^{'X' Road,of} iffr:'6'.i.r;l--8-se:r1, 1"^Floor' Ctikkao PullY,^HYderabad'

¶46