Chandrapati Veerabhadra Rao v. The Andhra Bank (A Govt. of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 5.10.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) as arbitrary and illegal. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned notice without considering the proposal made by him earlier for one-time settlement. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Act itself is in the nature of a show cause notice and sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 of the Act entitles the borrower to make a representation raising all the objections to the action initiated under the Act. If such representation is made, the secured creditor is bound to consider the same and communicate the reasons for non-acceptance of the objections raised. In circumstances, interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to make a representation raising the objections in terms of sub-section 3-A of Section 13 of the Act; in which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed by the respondents in terms of sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the Act. No costs. 26th October, 2006. Issue CC in two days. Kgr ______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22030 OF 2006 26th October, 2006. Between: Chandrapati Veerabhadra Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Andhra Bank (A Govt. of India Undertaking), Karimnagar Branch, Represented by its Manager, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and another. .. Respondents.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.